Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
All My Fans Around the World, They Love Real Talk
One of Barack Obama's offhand YouTube debate answers from last year—that he would meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea—has stuck to him ever since. Obama, who isn't much for admitting mistakes (assuming this was one), claims he's talking about a foreign policy in the tradition of FDR, Truman, and other presidents people liked. Clinton, McCain, and now Bush claim he's an easily-led appeaser. Yesterday McCain used a conference call with bloggers to attack Obama: "What do you want to talk about with him? President Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel is a 'stinking corpse'? That they want to wipe Israel off the map? That they continue to supply these terrible, most lethal, explosive devices that are killing young Americans? What do you want to talk to him about?"
But it seems ex-Clintonite Jamie Rubin, who interviewed McCain two years ago, has him dead to rights.
Rubin rubs it in: "For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today." But "conservative" isn't the right word for what McCain's doing. "Pandering," maybe. "Moronic swill that he doesn't believe." If McCain's going to cash this check, after all, he's going to... what? Break off all communications with Iran? If they're funding terrorism, and we don't talk to people who fund terrorism, wouldn't you have to? Is the most offensive thing about Iran is that its president called Israel a "stinking corpse?" You'd think so, given how much the campaign reiterates that... but I can hardly think of a stupider reason to break ties with a foreign power than "their leader made a threat he can't back up!"
Related, this clip from yesterday's Hardball, in which Chris Matthews de-bones a war-hungry talk show host, is good for five or six laughs.
MATTHEWS: You are talking about a critical point in American history, in European history, and you can't tell me what Neville Chamberlain did in Munich. What did he do in '39, '38?
JAMES: Chris, Chris, Chris, I wasn't the one that raised the Hitler comment. My point is -- my point is, what President Bush has done is, he has taken this shot across the bow, all right?
MATTHEWS: You don't know what you're talking about, Kevin. You don't know what you're talking about.
JAMES: ... know what I'm talking about.
MATTHEWS: Tell me what Chamberlain did wrong.
JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, Chris. Neville Chamberlain...
MATTHEWS: What did he do?
JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, all right?
MATTHEWS: What did he do?
JAMES: Neville Chamberlain, his -- but his policies, the things that Neville Chamberlain supported, all right energized, legitimized...
MATTHEWS: Just tell me what he did.
JAMES: ... energized, legitimized, and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced.
MATTHEWS: What...
MATTHEWS: I have been sitting here five minutes asking you to say what the president was referring to in 1938 at Munich.
JAMES: I don't know what the...
MATTHEWS: You don't know. Thank you.
You have to assume this spat is less about foreign policy
principle and more about peeling 10 or 15 percent of the Jewish
vote from Obama. Hey, what could be better for Israel than more
empty threats and destabilizing regional wars?
Headline explained here.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 10:57AM|#
I don't see the hypocrisy here.
McCain said "They're [Hamas] the government; sooner or later we are
going to have to deal with them, one way or another. . ."
McCains' statement doesn't rule out preconditions before
negotiation. McCain criticized Obama for saying no preconditions
were necessary, and not just with Hamas, but North Korea, Iran,
Etc.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:01AM|#
McCain is strangely impervious to the "flip-flopper" label. I don't know why; maybe it's because he just doesn't seem like one.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Neil, would you say that Spizzenergi's "Where's Captain Kirk" is the greatest Star Trek-themed song of all time?
|5.16.08 @ 11:07AM|#
What did Chamberlin do wrong? He let Hitler have Czechoslovakia
for free. The fact is that the allies were in a position of
strength in 1938. We know now that Hitler was not prepared to go to
war over Czechoslovakia. The German war machine wasn't ready and
France and England would have crushed him. Further, had the allies
back Czechoslovakia the Czechs could have put up a very good fight
against the Germans. The Czech border was highly fortified and a
much more difficult nut to crack than the Polish border.
Czechoslovakia was the key to central Europe. No one was more
surprised than Hitler when England and France sold it out. It was
one of the reasons why Hitler invaded Poland. If England was
unwilling to go to war over Czechoslovakia it was unthinkable they
would go to war over Poland.
Further, lets talk about the utter cowardice of the British during
the phony war between September 1939 and May 1940. The German Army
was not at full strength. All of its top units were engaged in
Poland. In the fall of 1939, the western German border was defended
by third rate units. The BEF was in France long before the Germans
had their top units shifted from Poland back to the west. Further,
the BEF and the French Armies were good Armies. They could have
rolled the German units in the west, advanced into Rhineland and
the war would have gone completely different. Von Manstein would
have never been able to attack through the Ardennes and conquer
France. We will never know and perhaps the top line German units
would have conquered France anyway. But it is important to remember
that the BEF and French Army was not as sad sack as most people
think and the German Army itself was not nearly as advanced as
people think. Their combined arms tactics were advanced but their
equipment and numbers were not superior to France and England.
France was conquered in 1940 not just because of the better
combined arms of the Germans but because of the tactical audacity
of Manstein in going through the Ardennes, which was a very risky
move that could just as easily ended in destruction of a large
portion of the German Army. Had England had any fighting spirit in
the fall of 1940, Manstein would have never had that
opportunity.
Chamberlain was a coward who refused to face the reality that war
in Europe was inevitable as long as Hitler remained in power in
Germany. He deserves the approbation he gets.
Is Obama really so ignorant of history that he thinks that Truman
and Roosevelt talked to our enemies? Roosevelt never talked to
Hitler. Further, a lot of people criticize Roosevelt for prolonging
the war by demanding unconditional surrender from the Axis. Truman
never met with the Soviets after the cold war started. It was
Eisenhower who launched détente. Perhaps Obama just doesn't know
any better. I doubt if he took many history in college and he
doesn't strike me as the type to be reading the Rise and Fall of
the Third Reich in his spare time. But that statement was one of
monumental historical ignorance. He ought to be called out for
it.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 11:10AM|#
I think John should be the Conservative on hardball instead of Kevin James. Did they pick a stupid conservative on purpose because of their liberal bias, or what?
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:12AM|#
By the way, I was referring to:
Not as good as the Captain Picard YTMND, Episiarch.
|5.16.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Episiarch,
In a fit of synchronicity, I
posted a house band song for Sulu Friday last night at
Urkobold. The song's called "George Takei Owns a Bank."
Neil is thoreau--I'm convinced.
|5.16.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Let's not forget the Palestine white paper that limited Jewish immigration into Palestine to 75,000. How many Jews were prevented from escaping the holocaust because of that?
|5.16.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Abdul is right. Further, "dealing with them" does not necessarily mean negotiations. It might mean that, it might not. Regardless, McCain is right; if they are the government we can't pretend they don't exist.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Neil is thoreau--I'm convinced.
Maybe. Don't count the moose out.
"Captain Picard YTMND". Brilliant.
Travis|5.16.08 @ 11:18AM|#
I loved that interview between Matthews & James. Most of these talking heads including Matthews don't know what they're talking about most of time.
BakedPenguin|5.16.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter.
Rather prescient, Neil. If you'll recall, Carter won because of a
near-universal disgust for an arrogant, corrupt administration. The
only difference is, Bush & Cheney should have been impeached
and resigned in disgrace, and a fumbling Hastert should have taken
his place.
|5.16.08 @ 11:20AM|#
I don't think so. His postings lack the strange perversiosity of the Nordic Llama.
|5.16.08 @ 11:21AM|#
I have to say this. What good ever came from refusing to talk to people? Talking isn't appeasement. Look, if Iran annexes Austria, I say invade, okay?
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Yes, but part of an art project like Neil is becoming the character and making it believable--and not letting your own perversions shine through.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 11:23AM|#
BP,
Not defending your opponent here but how does: "If you'll recall,
Carter won because of a near-universal disgust for an arrogant,
corrupt administration." square with Carter barely squeeking
through a win against Ford? One would think that near-universal
disgust would translate to a high margin, if not landslide for Mr.
Carter.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 11:25AM|#
And if you elect Hussein, 2012 will be like 1980 with Bobby Jindal playing a young Ronald Reagan leading us to total victory.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Speaking of that, where is VM? He's been quiet lately. Too
quiet.
Being Neil takes time, dude. Ever seen VM and Neil on the same
thread? Ever?
.|5.16.08 @ 11:31AM|#
And if you elect Hussein, 2012 will be like 1980 with Bobby
Jindal playing a young Ronald Reagan leading us to total
victory.
And then the Great Wall of China will fall, and the Mongolians will
be free to walk the streets of China?
ck|5.16.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Is Obama really so ignorant of history that he thinks that
Truman and Roosevelt talked to our enemies? Roosevelt never talked
to Hitler.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr14.htm
|5.16.08 @ 11:32AM|#
You have to assume this spat is less about foreign policy
principle and more about peeling 10 or 15 percent of the Jewish
vote from Obama.
Why is this the CW? It seems much more blatantly to be a GOTV
tactic targeted at right wing Evangelicals. Fear-mongering about
Israel's supposed vulnerability under Obama is the only issue
McCain can credibly claim to have in common with the
fundamentalists. In fact, McCain's using his loud pro-Israeli
government rhetoric in exactly the same way that Ahmadinejad is
using his grotesque anti-Israeli rhetoric: To manufacture political
support from people who disagree with the majority of his actual
policies.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Further, "dealing with them" does not necessarily mean
negotiations.
When you consider that John McCain lets his fists do his talking,
negotiation takes on a whole new meaning.
Elemenope|5.16.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter.
Hmm. Honkey Georgian peanut farmer cranky old man, and young
affable lanky mulatto community organizer dude.
I, too, see the resemblance.
Of course, they both chat with Brzezinski on occasion. So, there's
that.
Travis|5.16.08 @ 11:33AM|#
"Look, if Iran annexes Austria, I say invade, okay?"
PL,
I agree with you, but that made me look at my world map. Armenia
might be a bit easier for the Iranians to get to.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Elemenope what they share is a fundamental weakness and cowardice towards America's enemy, cmbined with a bumbling incompetence.
shecky|5.16.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Jeezuz... who is that clown Matthews smacked down? I have to say that exchange actually made me chuckle.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:38AM|#
OK Neil, a tough one now: what song by Kip Addotta was frequently on Dr. Demento's yearly top 10 songs?
Taktix®|5.16.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Wow, that Troll filter really tidys up this forum.
In other words, Neil, la la la, I can't hear you!
Travis|5.16.08 @ 11:39AM|#
I wonder if Matthews would be that hard on McCain or Obama if he was interviewing them I'm guessing no.
ck|5.16.08 @ 11:39AM|#
McCains' statement doesn't rule out preconditions before
negotiation.
Yes, it does. That's what "we have to, one way or another" means.
Not "we can, but only if they give in to our demands."
McCain criticized Obama for saying no preconditions were
necessary, and not just with Hamas, but North Korea, Iran,
Etc.
No, he didn't. He said there was literally no reason to talk to
Hamas at all. Which is the exact opposite of what he said at
Davos.
|5.16.08 @ 11:41AM|#
"I have to say this. What good ever came from refusing to talk
to people? Talking isn't appeasement. Look, if Iran annexes
Austria, I say invade, okay?"
When you talk to brutal regimes it gives them legitimacy. Third
rate dictators love to tell the world and their own people how
important they are.
You should only talk when you have something to talk about and some
leverage. Otherwise, negotiations amount to asking them nicely. In
the case of Iran, as it stands it is completely in their national
interests to obtain nuclear weapons. It would make them much less
vulnerable to attack and give them a much greater ability to
intimidate their neighbors. Unless we have some way to make it in
their interests to quit, talking to them about it is pretty
pointless.
Further, people never talk about what negotiations or talking mean.
We are always talking as in communicating with Iran. There is any
number of back channels through third parties where the two
governments can communicate. If the Iranians have any desire to
solve the conflict over their nuclear program, they know our phone
number.
When people like Obama say "talk" they mean having a big Potsdam
like summit where King Obama gets to come in and made peace with
the world. Those kind of talks are only productive if there are
already existing parameters for a deal. Reagan didn't meet with the
Soviets and sign SARTII until 1986. It took five years of cold war
and diplomacy to get that point and really that was a culmination
of 40 years of cold war diplomacy. Those types of meetings are the
end of the process of dealing with an adversary not the
beginning.
Obama acts like you can skip the middle part and just go have the
big meeting and do a few photo ops and solve the whole thing. That
is not how it works.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Obama acts like you can skip the middle part and just go
have the big meeting and do a few photo ops and solve the whole
thing. That is not how it works outside of
Chicago.
Fixed.
|5.16.08 @ 11:46AM|#
I've got a feeling Obama would suck ass at foreign policy, too.
I don't think he'd be good at domestic policy, either, but just
thinking about Carter-Obama comparisons, that part of it does
strike me as apt for some reason. Not that I think Obama would
necessarily be dovish. . .Carter actually wasn't that dovish,
either, not at the end.
Actually, that's one problem for McCain. Normally, the GOP
candidate seems better on foreign policy, but I don't think that's
the case this time around. In fact, we're in big trouble unless the
new POTUS appoints a great SOS and stays the hell out of foreign
policy decisions.
John,
Talking to bin Laden, no. Talking to the head of Iran, why not?
Don't have to recognize their government, don't have to send them
candy at Easter, but talk? I think the whole rigamarole of talking
but not officially talking is silly. You're right, that's exactly
what we're doing now. To little good effect.
My position is to stop meddling in the Middle East, but that's not
going to happen, regardless of how long we occupy Iraq.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Ck,
From a McCain press release in January, 2006:
"In the wake of yesterday's Palestinian elections, Hamas must
change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal
of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These
elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the
Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they
advocate the overthrow of Israel."
Sounds to me like preconditions.
I have to admit I was wrong to say that Obama would talk with
Hamas. Apparently, Obama never said he was willing to talk with
hamas w/o preconditions. Only Iran, Cuba, North Korea and other
"states." I'm unclear why he treats state and non-state actors
differently, but, fwiw, he does.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Isn't the point here not whether talking is valid or not, but rather that McCain is a shameless panderer and reversed himself?
Kolohe|5.16.08 @ 11:50AM|#
good catch ck.
And on the general theme of 'FDR and Truman never talking to our
enemies' there's
this and
this
|5.16.08 @ 11:51AM|#
The presence of Neil makes it futile for me to try to write any
sarcastic comments. It's just unnecessary because I can't do it as
well as he can.
< bows to neil >
|5.16.08 @ 11:51AM|#
The problem with John's post above is that it is based on the
key phrase "we know now". And quite frankly, the whole
bologna rests on the idea that every American antagonist is Hitler.
It's a perpetual Godwinization.
Thus, in the spirit of John, I accuse George W. Bush of being a
weak kneed coward who is appeasing terrorists by being "the first
American President to call for the creation of a Palestinian
state." (July 16, 2007 speech).
How is this not appeasing the terrorists just like weak kneed
Neville Chamberlain giving the Sudetenland to Germany?
|5.16.08 @ 11:52AM|#
"Talking to bin Laden, no. Talking to the head of Iran, why not?
Don't have to recognize their government, don't have to send them
candy at Easter, but talk? I think the whole rigamarole of talking
but not officially talking is silly. You're right, that's exactly
what we're doing now. To little good effect."
We already do talk to them. People act like the only way to "talk"
to a government is to have some big summit. That is not true.
Resolutions to conflicts are not worked out at summits. They are
resolved and then you have the summit to finalize it. To give
another example, the Israelis and the Egyptians had worked out the
peace before Camp David. The media makes it sound like they were at
each other's throat and then by the magic of Jesus Carter they
worked it out. That is not what happened. Until we can create an
international effort for sanctions that will really hurt Iran and
give them an incentive to stop their nuclear program or are willing
to go to war unilaterally to stop it, there is no point in having a
summit with Iran. All it would do is make us look weak like we are
begging them to stop and give them good photo ops to look
reasonable. I am all for having a summit with Iran once we have
something to say and have some leverage over their behavior. But
until then, it would be pointless and counter productive.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Abdul,
I have to admit I was wrong to say that Obama would talk with
Hamas. Apparently, Obama never said he was willing to talk with
hamas w/o preconditions. Only Iran, Cuba, North Korea and other
"states." I'm unclear why he treats state and non-state actors
differently, but, fwiw, he does.
Don't sell your instincts short. I don't think he has put a period
on the end of his list yet.
|5.16.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Ronald Reagan was a big giant communist appeaser when he met with Gorbechev in Iceland. Meeting with our enemies is the same as giving them the keys to the Sudetenland.
|5.16.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Maybe it's just because I've gotten to be a BOF, but I'm amused
by all the whining the Dems are doing about being tagged as
appeasers. That was SOP for Cold Warriors thumping the drum for
containment - even rollback! - prior to the fall of The Wall.
It takes a Nixon to go to China became a cliche because
that was Dick Frakking Nixon talking to Mao, not some IPS-advised
McGovernite.
Now, it could be that McCain's jawboning the Arab and Iranian
elites, so he can play Tricky Dick and they can play Chou, but in
the short run he's locking down all the core GOPers with an
interest in protecting Israel, at a minimum.
Let's not forget the Reagan sent the ayotollahs a cake.
Kevin
|5.16.08 @ 11:55AM|#
"The problem with John's post above is that it is based on the
key phrase "we know now". And quite frankly, the whole bologna
rests on the idea that every American antagonist is Hitler. It's a
perpetual Godwinization."
Read the post Lamar. I never said every advasary was Hitler. It
doesn't say one word about the current situation. I was only making
the historical point about Chamberlain and Matthews' rediculous
question, "What did Chamberaim do wrong". He did a lot wrong.
If you want to slam on my post, at least read the damn thing for
what it is rather than as wish fullfillment.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Kolohe,
Nice point on what a traitor FDR really was. He made the Soviets
our Allies when we should have just let them and their "superior
Economic system" fend for themselves.
Kolohe|5.16.08 @ 11:56AM|#
We 'talked' to the Soviet Union for the entirety of the Cold
War.
And by being in the UN we've 'talked' to everyone for the last 60
years.
Elemenope|5.16.08 @ 11:56AM|#
what they share is a fundamental weakness and cowardice
towards America's enemy, combined with a bumbling
incompetence.
Because when thinking of the guy who out-flanked, out-fought, and
out-fundraised the Hillary machine in the Democratic primary, the
first term that comes to mind is 'bumbling incompetence'.
And when thinking of the promise to invade Pakistan (an ally!) to
root out terr'rists, with the UN, no UN, fuck the UN, the first
term that comes to my mind is 'fundamental weakness and
cowardice'.
You and I, Neil. Right on the same wavelength.
Episiarch: Neil, you are the best. Well done.
Ain't it so true?
|5.16.08 @ 11:57AM|#
I'm confused. Which white guy is Obama? Or is he a muslim? or a
relative of a 3rd world former dictator? or an african
nationalist?
he's been so many things in the past year, its hard to keep track
or even keep count. Tomorrow I'm thinking he'll be michael
moore..or maybe oprah...or maybe he's just a completely different
person than the everyone else and can't be judged as comparitive to
people that have come before...
|5.16.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Nixon - China: Appeasement!
Lamar are you really that fucking illiterate? Can you not
understand the printed word? Nixon and China is a great example.
Nixon didn't meet with China until he realized they were at odds
with the Soviet Union and there was an opportunity to make a deal
and split them from the Soviets. That is a great example of a
summit occurring after there already was parameters for a deal. If
Johnson had gone to China in 1965, not a damned thing would have
changed. It is the situation that creates the deal, not the mere
fact of going.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Isn't the point here not whether talking is valid or not,
but rather that McCain is a shameless panderer and reversed
himself?
If McCain has reversed himself on the talking with Hamas issue, the
proof is not here. Stating that you have to deal with the fact that
Hamas is gaining legitimacy in Palestine is different from saying
you are going to cut deals with Hamas.
Kolohe|5.16.08 @ 11:58AM|#
reading through John's followups, I don't disagree with him as much as I initially did.
ck|5.16.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Abdul,
Yes, in that press release he describes preconditions. And in the
interview with Rubin, he said "sooner or later, one way or
another." These two claims can't be reconciled. Unless you think he
meant, "sooner or later, Hamas will give up violence, and then
we'll have to talk to them." Which is nonsensical - similar to his
"at some point, American troops will stop dying in Iraq, and THEN
we can stay for another 100 years" line.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Ronald Reagan was a big giant communist appeaser when he met
with Gorbechev in Iceland.
You mean when he did not give in to any Soviet demand and yelled at
Gorbedhev for not agreeing with him?
That is appeasement?
(maybe you were joking and I missed it, if so, oops!)
ck|5.16.08 @ 12:01PM|#
I was only making the historical point about Chamberlain and
Matthews' rediculous question, "What did Chamberaim do wrong". He
did a lot wrong.
You have totally misunderstood the point Matthews was making. Did
you even watch the clip? He doesn't say that Chamberlain did
nothing wrong. At the end, he explicitly lists the things
Chamberlain did wrong.
His point is that know-nothing reflexive hawks constantly invoke
Chamberlain without having the slightest idea what actually
happened in 1938 and to what extent it is actually analogous to
situations we face today.
|5.16.08 @ 12:02PM|#
"You mean when he did not give in to any Soviet demand and
yelled at Gorbedhev for not agreeing with him?
That is appeasement?"
He also met with Gorbechev, not with Breznev, Cherynko or Andropov.
If you listen to Obama you would think that he could have just met
with Breznev in the spring of 1981 and solved the whole thing. Why
did that war monger wait for a new Soviet regime and five years
before he did it?
|5.16.08 @ 12:02PM|#
"You mean when he did not give in to any Soviet demand and
yelled at Gorbedhev for not agreeing with him?
That is appeasement?"
Yes, because according to the current GOP view, merely speaking to
our enemies is appeasement. It doesn't matter what is said. The
simple fact of meeting constitutes the appeasement.
David Weigel|5.16.08 @ 12:02PM|#
You mean when he did not give in to any Soviet demand and
yelled at Gorbedhev for not agreeing with him?
Well, that's the stupidity of this attack on Obama. He's saying
"I'll meet with them," not "I'll give Hugo Chavez half of Florida
if he'll be nice to us."
|5.16.08 @ 12:03PM|#
That is appeasement?
Way to move the goalposts.
Pardon me, but listening to the right wing leaning blowhards on
this thread and to the right wing politicians:
TALKING WITH OUR ENEMIES = APPEASEMENT.
None of you stated that demands had to be given in to. Until of
course reality showed that your heroes were appeasers by that
standard.
Pick a standard and stick to it you dishonest twits.
|5.16.08 @ 12:04PM|#
"Well, that's the stupidity of this attack on Obama. He's
saying "I'll meet with them," not "I'll give Hugo Chavez half of
Florida if he'll be nice to us."
If it's the southern half, we won't miss it.
|5.16.08 @ 12:05PM|#
"His point is that know-nothing reflexive hawks constantly
invoke Chamberlain without having the slightest idea what actually
happened in 1938 and to what extent it is actually analogous to
situations we face today."
No I don't watch that show. If that is what Mathews is saying he is
to some extent right in that it is not always 1938. That said,
nations are always going to act in their interests and those
interests are not always going to be ours. If the Hawks are wrong
in thinking it is alway 1938, the doves are equally wrong in
thinking that we can always negotiate our way out of
everything.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Well, that's the stupidity of this attack on Obama. He's
saying "I'll meet with them," not "I'll give Hugo Chavez half of
Florida if he'll be nice to us."
He's saying "I'll give Hugo Chavez all the legitimacy and prestige
that comes with meeting the leader of the only superpower in
exchange for his anti-American activities all these years. Oh, and
sorry Columbia, but if you want the same, try being less of an ally
and more of an antagonist."
.|5.16.08 @ 12:09PM|#
If the Hawks are wrong in thinking it is alway 1938, the
doves are equally wrong in thinking that we can always negotiate
our way out of everything.
Yes, the two most extreme positions possible are incorrect.
|5.16.08 @ 12:09PM|#
I understand the not-giving-legitimacy argument and even agree with it to some extent, but, in the end, it's what serves our interests and what is the right course of action that most matters. If Rice met with the Iranian leadership on an official level, our disdain for Iranian policy, etc. doesn't just disappear, nor does mere discussion remove their pariah status.
|5.16.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Andropov lasted like, what, a year?
and Cheryenko's rule could be measured in weeks.
|5.16.08 @ 12:10PM|#
He's saying "I'll give Hugo Chavez all the legitimacy and
prestige that comes with meeting the leader of the only superpower
in exchange for his anti-American activities all these
years
The don't we do business with his nation? Wouldn't that make him
inherently legitimate?
Abdul I don't get your reasoning.
The leaders of foreign nations that we have dealings with are in
fact legitimate.
What do you propose? That the US treat any foreign leaders who have
political views that run counter to mainstream America be treated
as illegitimate?
Rick H.|5.16.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Why is it that when people point out how John's arguments are wrong, he suddenly turns into Cathy Young?
|5.16.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Yea, right, yea you really are reading in good faith.
Gotcha.
Care to dispute the fact being pointed out by me and others? Or
explain how I am misreading the nonsense coming out of the mouths
of you and your ilk? Or would you prefer to merely reply with snark
when called out for moving the goalposts?
You can't have it both ways. If Obama is an "appeaser" for
believing we should talk to our enemies, then so is Reagan. Both
are or both aren't -- but you don't get separate standards for
"your guys".
BakedPenguin|5.16.08 @ 12:17PM|#
One would think that near-universal disgust would translate to a high margin, if not landslide for Mr. Carter.
Guy - for one thing, Carter wasn't running against Nixon. If you
believe that matchup would have been something other than a
landslide, well... I don't know what to say.
For another thing, he was Jimmy Carter. That he won a
national election at all can only be explained by "right time,
right place".
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 12:19PM|#
CT,
Yes, more of the same from you, huh? Sounds like you are a bit too
emotional for this thread, especially with anybody who does not
agree with your every word.
Here, in simple terms:
Appeaser==No preconditions to meeting up with the enemies of ours
and our allies; see Nancy Pelosi, James Earl Carter, Jr., Sen.
Obama.
Non Appeaser==Might meet with almost anybody, but certain
conditions must be met by our foes.
No, I will not ansewe your predictibly silly followup to all of the
hypothetical conditions that could be desired.
Your 12:03pm post was a bigger load of crap than even Neil could
drem up.
|5.16.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Did I miss something? Did Obama say that he wanted to have summits with Iran, NK, etc?
|5.16.08 @ 12:20PM|#
To the "don't legitimize" people:
When is Iran's government legitimate and when isn't it? Is it only
legitimate when its been installed by us?
joe|5.16.08 @ 12:20PM|#
When people like Obama say "talk" they mean having a big
Potsdam like summit where King Obama gets to come in and made peace
with the world.
We already do talk to them. People act like the only way to
"talk" to a government is to have some big summit.
Apparently, there isn't anything in Barack Obama's statements that
partisan Republicans can object to, so they have to make shit
up.
See, it's ok to have fine, upstanding, Republican negotiations.
Just not big, Democratic appeasement summits. And we know that when
Barack Obama says "talk" and "meet" and "deal with," he's not using
those terms to mean the same things that John McCain means. Of
course not - he's a Democrat, you see.
Only Republicans can talk about talks. When Democrats do it, it's
appeasement.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Abdul,
The mere fact that we have an embassy, etc. in Venezuela means that
we treat the Chavez regime as a legitimate one.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 12:21PM|#
BP,
Guy - for one thing, Carter wasn't running against Nixon. If
you believe that matchup would have been something other than a
landslide, well... I don't know what to say.
I don't either, so go back to the post I was commenting on and
figure it out.
|5.16.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Shorter Guy Montag:
Dems = Cowardly Pussified Appeasers!
GOPers = Smart Non-Appeasing Tough Negotiators.
Tsu Dho Nihm|5.16.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Andropov lasted like, what, a year?
Yeah, I remember that. "Bury Yuri in a Hurry" and such
headlines.
Er, wait...that was Saturday Night
Live.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 12:28PM|#
FWIW:
Most commonly,
appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed
conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at
the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands
of an aggressor in order to avoid war.
Merely talking to an enemy without preconditions doesn't seem to
fit this particular definition of the term.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#
ChicagoTom and Colin Clout,
You seem to read "legitimate" to mean that Venezuela, Iran, North
Korea all meet the basic criteria for a sovereign state, and the US
would have to deal with them as such. To that extent, you are
right. I don't propose dealing with Venezuela the way some nations
treat Taiwan or Israel--denying their soveriegnty and all
diplomatic recognition.
By "legitimate" I was trying to convey the idea that a meeting with
the POTUS confers a certain status upon the leader of the nation.
If the Prime Minister of Canada calls, the president will pick up
the phone because we have a certain level of respect for Canada. If
Chavez calls, the president can direct him to voice mail because he
hasn't treated us with respect.
|5.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#
There is an actual, non-pulled-out-of-Guy-Montag's-ass
definition of appeasement: to offer concessions to one's enemies,
to give in to their demands, in an effort to keep them from being
hostile.
In the case of Chamberlain, he agreed to give in to the Germans'
demands at Munich, and to reneg on Britain's mutual defense treaty
with the Czechs.
This is why it was so idiotic that the Bushies were throwing around
the word "appeasement" prior to the Iraq War. The "appeasement"
position was to compel Saddam Hussein to admit weapons inspectors
at the point of a gun, so they could poke around his country's
secret military facilities and disarm him. Not exactly handing him
the keys to the western third of a Chechoslovakia.
And why their use of the term is so stupid today: they are using
the term as a synonym for having any diplomatic contact, regardless
of the substance, the outcome, or the position argued by the
American side.
Of course, we've seen how that turned out in North Korea. George
Bush spent six years congratulating himself for not talking to
evil, and evil got ICBMs and the warheads to load on them. Which is
why even he had to flip-flop, listen to Powell and Rice, and hold
talks. Many, Republican talks. You know, the kind that went almost
exactly like the talks held under that big appeaser, Clinton.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 12:30PM|#
If the Prime Minister of Canada calls, the president will
pick up the phone because we have a certain level of respect for
Canada.
Maybe you should have picked a country who we actually pay
attention to, like Britain or France.
|5.16.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Based on the Bushies' handling of the nuclear technology
negotiations with India, they are apparently arguing in good faith
whey they conflate the existence of a diplomatic process with
abject acceptance of the other party's terms.
They really do seem to think that this is how diplomacy works.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Abdul,
By "legitimate" I was trying to convey the idea that a meeting
with the POTUS confers a certain status upon the leader of the
nation.
That depends on how the meeting goes, doesn't it? A deft leader
could come out of a no preconditions meeting with the status of his
opposite diminished, right?
|5.16.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Does this mean that Bush's voicemail is clogged with messages from Chavez? "George, pick up. Pick up. Pick up, cabron!"
|5.16.08 @ 12:37PM|#
By "legitimate" I was trying to convey the idea that a
meeting with the POTUS confers a certain status upon the leader of
the nation. If the Prime Minister of Canada calls, the president
will pick up the phone because we have a certain level of respect
for Canada. If Chavez calls, the president can direct him to voice
mail because he hasn't treated us with respect.
There a pretty big gap between talking to a nation at all, and
taking their calls any time they call you.
By this standard, you're whole legitimacy stance is even sillier
(no offense). Obama never suggested a Hotline to his
administration, just that the his administration would be willing
to meet with them. That's a far cry from what you seem to be
talking calling "legitimizing".
|5.16.08 @ 12:37PM|#
That Matthews clip is the best!
The really is the level of thought and knowledge behind this
"appeasement" language.
Dude couldn't even come up with the words "Munich" or
"Czechoslovakia."
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 12:39PM|#
That depends on how the meeting goes, doesn't it? A deft
leader could come out of a no preconditions meeting with the status
of his opposite diminished, right?
I can't get a meeting with a big Hollywood director about being
cast in a movie because the directors don't see me as legitimate.
George Clooney can, because he's seen as legitimate. He may not get
cast, but just scheduling the meeting shows that Clooney is
respected.
It's hard to see how the POTUS would school Chavez or Kim Jong Il
in a meeting when he can't get them to agree to some basic ground
rules before they come into the room.
jimmy|5.16.08 @ 12:41PM|#
wait...chris matthews was interviewing kevin james...the king of
queens???
"what did chamberlain do wrong?"
"he appeased...he did the old appeasement thing...appeasarino...oh
whaddaya want me to say...HE APPEASED...APPEASED...APPEASED...god i
need food...CARRIE!!!"
.|5.16.08 @ 12:42PM|#
I can't get a meeting with a big Hollywood director about
being cast in a movie because the directors don't see me as
legitimate. George Clooney can, because he's seen as legitimate. He
may not get cast, but just scheduling the meeting shows that
Clooney is respected.
Sort of like how the President might want to talk to people that
have power in the country in question, even if they might not get
the part?
Neil|5.16.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Why do you want to give our sworn enemies prestige and
legitimacy on the world stage, Joe?
Obama, like his role model Carter is an appeaser.
|5.16.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Abdul,
They're already heads of state. The comparison is not to some shlub
on the street who wants a role, but to an established actor that
the director doesn't like.
BTW, Obama has stated that there would be "preparations" before the
meetings, but not "preconditions." In the oh-so-nuanced world of
diplomacy, the former refers to the "ground rules" about the
meetings that you mention, while the latter refers to changes in
behavior and policy - not in the conference room, but in their
actions in the world - that the other party must agree to prior to
the meeting being held.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 12:45PM|#
McCain is fairing much better already among Jews than flip-flop Kerry did in 2004.
|5.16.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Neil,
Why do you want to give our sworn enemies prestige and
legitimacy on the world stage, Joe?
Heads of state already have prestige on the world stage. Do you
mean, why do I want to engage in diplomacy with Iran? Why, to get
stuff from them, obviously. Why else would anyone engage in
diplomacy?
Obama, like his role model Carter is an appeaser.
There is an actual, non-pulled-out-of-Guy-Montag's-ass definition
of appeasement: to offer concessions to one's enemies, to give in
to their demands, in an effort to keep them from being
hostile.
I defy you tame a single concession Jimmy Carter made under threat
from a hostile power.
Oh, and Neil? Why do you still want Israel to face the threat of a
two-front invasion along its borders with Egypt and Jordan?
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Abdul,
It's hard to see how the POTUS would school Chavez or Kim Jong
Il in a meeting when he can't get them to agree to some basic
ground rules before they come into the room.
Actually, I think it is easy to see. Just make the meeting open to
reporters. If they refuse to come to such a meeting, it would be a
public relations coup for the POTUS.
Anyway, these folks are already viewed with 'respect,' which is why
we have both open and back channel talks with them.
PR|5.16.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Wouldn't Obama's invoking of previous presidents who talked to our enemies been a better point if he had instead named presidents who avoided war by talking instead of presidents who ended up going to war anyway?
|5.16.08 @ 12:50PM|#
McCain is fairing much better already among Jews than
flip-flop Kerry did in 2004.
John Kerry won 75% of the Jewish vote in 2004.
John McCain is getting approximately 30% of the Jewish vote in the
polls.
Is there any point where the things you write intersect with the
objective world, Neil? Ever, anywhere?
Neil|5.16.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Jimmy Carter was weak in the face of Iranian threats, and he legetimized their power.
.|5.16.08 @ 12:52PM|#
To be fair to Hollywood directors:
They don't talk to you because its not cost-effective. They don't
have time and money to talk to every random person. If they did,
they would LOVE to be able to find every next big actor/screen-play
before the other studios.
This has little to do with a President trying to create an amicable
situation between us and another country.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Yea, CT, I really assaulted a whole party and hailed another,
yea, I was right the first time.
Wanna fabricate my being a McCain supporter next?
I think TNR is saving an intern position for you, but
The Nation might make you a better offer.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 12:53PM|#
If it wasn't for Carter and his wishy-washy human rights BS the shah would still be in power and we wouldn't face an Islamofascist sate with nukes.
joe|5.16.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Neil | May 16, 2008, 12:52pm | #
Jimmy Carter was weak in the face of Iranian threats, and he
legetimized their power.
Thank you for sharing your feelings, Reverend Wrong.
Now, would you please name for a us a single concession that Jimmy
Carter agreed to from the Iranians?
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 12:57PM|#
What any future POTUS' foreign policy will look like will depend on two factors that he or she will not be able to easily to control: inertia and contigency.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 12:58PM|#
OT: Just got to see Gary Sinise and the Lt. Dan Band play that horrid James Marshall Hendrix tune, Purple Haze. I prefer the Gary Sinise band rendition.
|5.16.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Lamar are you really that fucking illiterate? Can you not
understand the printed word? Nixon and China is a great example.
Nixon didn't meet with China until he realized they were at odds
with the Soviet Union and there was an opportunity to make a deal
and split them from the Soviets. That is a great example of a
summit occurring after there already was parameters for a deal. If
Johnson had gone to China in 1965, not a damned thing would have
changed. It is the situation that creates the deal, not the mere
fact of going.
You ought to read some history before you go fisking. The
Sino-Soviet split began well before 1965. The PRC government in
1971-72 was as evil as any in history, and Nixon's visit definitely
helped legitimate Mao.
|5.16.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Here, Neil, let me show you what it looks like:
In 1938, Neville Chamberlain adopted an appeasement policy, and
agreed to the Germans' demands that Britain withdraw from its
mutual-defense treaty with Czechoslovakia and allow the Germans to
occupy the Sudentenland.
Now, your turn: in ___________________, Jimmy Carter adopted an
appeasement policy, and agreed to the _____________________s'
demands that America _________________________, and allow
____________________ to __________________.
|5.16.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Neil, if you don't know enough about Jimmy Carter's policies and
actions to even tell us what they were, then how do you know they
amounted to appeasement?
O. Right. He's a Democrat. Any diplomacy conducted by a Democrat
is, by definition, appeasement. That's what appeasement means, in
Republican Newspeak.
Episiarch|5.16.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Look, when you use appeasement, you just make an ape pee in your basement.
|5.16.08 @ 1:05PM|#
There is a fair point to be made that poorly-executed diplomacy
can lead to enhancing the other party's prestige, without
accomplishing anything.
For example, Cheney going to Saudi Arabia and failing.
Put me down as OPPOSED to poorly-executed diplomacy. I vote
Nay.
|5.16.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Actually, Carter screwed up in not trying to rein in
the Shah. As with most things, the matter was made more complex due
to the Soviet Union. Soviet intervention was a real
possibility.
joe,
Carter did manage to let the Iranians keep our hostages. That was
appeasement-like. I can appreciate his reasons, but even
Chamberlain had reasons. Carter was torn between his human rights
push at the beginning of his administration and his more hawkish
moves later, due more to Soviet aggression than to Iran. He really
wasn't a very good president.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Mr. Carter did a great deal of appeasing the Soviets in Europe,
that whole business of getting the Europeans to agree to more
forward missile basing, at great political risk to the European
leaders, and then yanking them off the table the first time the
Soviets hinted at a boo!
Afghanistan, more appeasing. Don't even start with that stupid
Olympic boycott. And if you want to point to Charlie Wilson's War,
that was done in spite of Mr. Carter's wishes, not at his
initiation.
No, I am not jumping into the silly discussion that two(?) people I
generally ignore are pretending to have.
Elemenope|5.16.08 @ 1:12PM|#
No, I am not jumping into the silly discussion that two(?)
people I generally ignore are pretending to have.
It surely is Opposite Day, today.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 1:13PM|#
PL,
Don't forget about Mr. Carter all-but pulling out of South Korea.
Kinda backfired on him with the South Koreans developing an
incredibly strong and robust military on their own. They even sold
OH-6 helicopters at inflated prices to the North so that they could
buy better gear.
joe|5.16.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Carter did manage to let the Iranians keep our hostages. That
was appeasement-like. No, he didn't. He took military action
(which failed) to rescue them, and gave the Iranians exactly
nothing.
There are plenty of accusations one can make towards Mr. Carter
regarding that affair, but appeasement is not one of them, unless
you're simply redefining it to mean "bad stuff."
Guy's missile example is better, although that's a borderline case,
too. We didn't actually give anything to the Soviets that they
wanted. The Afghanistan one is lame, though. We gave the Soviets'
exactly nothing, and in fact, took action against them.
Regardless, Neil's accusation was about Iran, so I asked him about
that.
|5.16.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Don't forget about Mr. Carter all-but pulling out of South
Korea. Kinda backfired on him with the South Koreans developing an
incredibly strong and robust military on their own. They even sold
OH-6 helicopters at inflated prices to the North so that they could
buy better gear.
Uh, if the outcome of his actions was a stonger, better-defended
South Korea taking more responsibility for its own defense, how is
that "backfiring?" In non-Bizarro-world, that is exactly what
Carter was trying to achieve.
Of course, in Bizarro-world, Jimmy Carter was really hoping that
the Kim Il Sung would take over South Korea.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Joe it was about appeasement in general and Guy did a great
job.
Bottom line is Democrat Presidents are weak on foreign policy,
Republicans strong and robust, and its been like this since the
late 60s.
|5.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Your "strong, robust" foreign policy got North Korea
nuclear-tipped missiles, Hamas control of a government, and the
Iranian resistance crushed.
But I'm sure all of that time you spent patting yourselves on the
back felt good, and that's what really matters.
|5.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"That is a great example of a summit occurring after there
already was parameters for a deal."
Wow. So, talking with our enemies is appeasement unless there is
already a workable deal in place, in which case striking a deal
with our enemies is not appeasement?
Looking back at past administrations, it is clear that the current
"appeasement" argument is a bunch of BS. The only way to
distinguish our talks with the Chinese, Russians and the Iranians
(in the 1980s) and the current definition of "appeasement" is party
identification.
Abdul|5.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Actually, I think it is easy to see. Just make the meeting
open to reporters. If they refuse to come to such a meeting, it
would be a public relations coup for the POTUS.
Requiring the presence of reporters sounds like a precondition. And
there's a reason that meetings between heads of state--even
friendly ones--aren't covered by reporters. The heads of state need
a bit of privacy so they can talk freely without worrying how it'll
be reported in the newspaper.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#
I just learned that the Carter administration created the precursor to CENTCOM.
|5.16.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Neil-speak:
Strong, robust foreign policy = Israel's war against Hezbollah, the
Iraq War. This makes your country stronger.
Weak, appeasing foreign policy = Israel negotiating with Egypt in
79 and with Jordan in the 90s. This makes your country weaker.
Neil|5.16.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Weak=what Clinton did when Osama was offered up on a silver platter and he didn't take him.
|5.16.08 @ 1:29PM|#
You mean like when Zarqawi was offered up before the Iraq War,
and Bush didn't take him?
Anyway, it's clear that this isn't about "appeasement," which
you've been utterly unable to discuss. It's about your "bottom
line" - Democrats bad, Republicans good.
That's all this was ever about. There is no meaningful discussion
of foreign policy here.
|5.16.08 @ 1:30PM|#
I think Guy's examples are good ones, better than mine. What is
appeasement? Remember, the initial appeasement of Chamberlain was
allowing a fait accompli, not giving more. Carter pretty
much allowed the Iranians to hold our hostages, not even attempting
much until quite late in the game.
Incidentally, did Reagan appease the Iranians? I think one must say
yes, though I understand his reasons. Again, everything back then
was about the Soviets.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Abdul,
Is it part of the "preperation" or a "precondition?"
The heads of state need a bit of privacy so they can talk
freely without worrying how it'll be reported in the
newspaper.
That assumes that "talking freely" would be the future POTUS'
primary motive, doesn't it? Anyway, I can see all sorts of ways
that such a meeting could be used to this nation's advantage.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Well, because of Munich the general perception seems to be that
appeasement is always a bad thing. So the question is, is it always
a bad thing? Or is it simply a tool via which to make pragmatic
choices?
|5.16.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Appeasement is giving concessions to your enemies in the hope
that they will agree to stop further aggression.
The Sudentenland was NOT a fait accompli. Hitler didn't go in until
after the British and French agreed to abandon the Czechs.
Carter pretty much allowed the Iranians to hold our hostages,
not even attempting much until quite late in the game. Yes, he
could have offered all sorts of things that the Iranians wanted to
get them back, but he didn't. This isn't appeasement, it's the
opposite of appeasement. He didn't give them anything. He made no
concessions at all.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Or is it simply a tool via which to make pragmatic
choices?
More like the preferred tool of 'tools'.
|5.16.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Incidentally, did Reagan appease the Iranians?
No. He made a quid-pro-quo deal. He wasn't trying to buy off the
Iranians so they would cease being aggressive, but to purchase
their services in securing the release of hostages.
Appeasement is when you give Fat Tony and envelope every week so he
doesn't break your legs. When you give him money to get you a
stolen car or beat up the guy who's bothering your daughter, that
isn't appeasement. It's something else.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Case in point, were the concessions granted by the USSR and the US
during the Cuban Missile Crisis a form of appeasement?
|5.16.08 @ 1:39PM|#
joe,
Come on. You can keep Munich. No more concessions.
In any case, one man's appeasement is another man's freedom
fighter. I don't think the U.S. has to worry about appeasing
nation-states, because we can deal with them or with others
inspired by our generosity. Where appeasement begins to be a
problem is with expansionistic or potentially expansionistic
countries that cannot be hemmed in or with terrorists. It's the
encouraging of similar future behavior that makes appeasement
bad.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Guy Montag,
Which was the perferable outcome: the launching of missiles from
Cuba to the U.S. and our response or the concessions that both the
US and the USSR agreed to?
|5.16.08 @ 1:40PM|#
The Romans used to buy off barbarian tribes with a little gold,
in exchange for their not looting Roman provinces.
They could have sent a few legions and taken care of those tribes
if they were so inclined, but that would have cost more, and
screwed up other plans they had for their legions.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Colin Clout,
I will not concede to your limited universe of responses.
BTW, the Soviets had incredibly limited ICBM delivery capability at
the time and JFK knew it, but those short range, armed missiles
already on the coast of Cuba, with their commanders having nuclear
release authorization already, that could have been a little
problem. He did not know about the latter.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Anyway, is meeting without preconditions a form of appeasement? Probably not.
|5.16.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Joe,
Appeasement is what we have been doing with North Korea since 1994.
We are paying them in hopes they don't break our legs. Truthfully,
appeasement isn't always the worst option. It is never a good
option but sometimes the other options are worse.
If what you say about Obama is true, then he is no different than
what we have now. Bush has been talking to the Iranians and trying
to get them to stop from going nuclear for eight years. The
question is what does Obama bring to the table? You can't just say
"I will rely on diplomacy". That is meaningless bullshit.
"Diplomacy" could mean anything.
The hard truth is that the Iranians are going to build the bomb
unless we give them a reason not to. We can give them a reason not
to by paying them like we have in North Korea, which hasn't worked
out so well. We can give them a reason to stop by getting the
Russians, Europe and the Chinese to sign up to real sanctions that
would hurt their economy. But, thus far no one has managed to
convince the world to do that. If Obama has a plan to do that, I
would like to hear it. We can give them a reason to stop by
threatening to bomb them into the stone age. Right now, no one
would support us in that and we would have to do it unilaterally.
Again, if Obama has a plan to get the world to support such a plan
I would like to hear it. Lastly, we can just do nothing and live
with a nuclear Iran. Maybe Obama thinks that is the solution. Some
people do. If so I would like to hear his explanation why he thinks
that is a good idea.
What I don't want to hear is meaningless calls for "diplomacy"
without any idea of what the diplomacy is supposed to accomplish.
That is just political horseshit.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Guy Montag,
Most of the delivery capacity was via planes and shells actually.
The shells would had done a world of hurt to parts of Florida. As
for authorization, that was given and withdrawn a number of times -
which could have led to confusion if things had gotten hotter on
the ground. Plus there was all that business with the Soviet
submarines which could have gotten out of control.
|5.16.08 @ 1:54PM|#
"BTW, the Soviets had incredibly limited ICBM delivery
capability at the time and JFK knew it, but those short range,
armed missiles already on the coast of Cuba, with their commanders
having nuclear release authorization already, that could have been
a little problem. He did not know about the latter."
They were also under orders to fire if they were attacked. Had
Kennedy bombed Cuba it would have been World War III. Also, Castro
arguing for launching a unilateral attack with them after the
blocade and the cooler heads in the Soviet Union said no. The more
I think about the cold war the more I wonder how it is that we are
still alive.
TallDave|5.16.08 @ 1:58PM|#
You can only lose when negotiating with a bad faith partner. We
learned that in the 1990s with N Korea.
What happens is, they say "Give us A,B and C and we'll agree to
whatever you want." They take A,B and C and renege on their part,
leaving you SOL.
|5.16.08 @ 1:58PM|#
joe,
Worst example, ever. The Western Empire arguably fell because of
its failure to deal with the Goths. Sure, let those kids with their
black clothes and poor musical tastes move into your territory,
then encourage them to stay with regular bribes.
Not that I'm advocating Roman tactics today.
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Short of a significant military engagement it is unlikely that the U.S. can stop the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons.
|5.16.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Is Obama really so ignorant of history that he thinks that
Truman and Roosevelt talked to our enemies? Roosevelt never talked
to Hitler.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr14.htm
Ouch. The answer to that long, bloviating tirade was short, sweet
and . . . well, kind of kick ass, wasn't it?
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Well, it was the Eastern Emporer (Valens) who first allowed them to
enter and then decided to attack the Goths. Chalk it up to a
moronic immigration policy.
TallDave|5.16.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Lastly, we can just do nothing and live with a nuclear
Iran.
That is the most likely scenario.
I look forward to spending the 2020s reading regular threats by
Iran to nuke everyone they don't like.
|5.16.08 @ 2:06PM|#
"John,
Why exactly would the PRC support your proposal?"
I don't think that they would. I don't think there are any good
options with Iran. I am very pessimistic about Iran. The Russians
and the Chinese don't care if Iran gets nukes and they love the
idea of Iran causing us and Europe trouble. We are either going to
have to act on our own to end it or live with a nuclear Iran. Both
are terrible options.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr14.htm
I don't think a communique is quite what Obama is talking about
when he says he will "talk with our enemies". Further if that is
the standard, Bush and every other President has been talking to
our enemies for the whole history of the country.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Most of the delivery capacity was via planes and shells
actually. The shells would had done a world of hurt to parts of
Florida.
I have never seen a thing about the Soviets having artillery shells
that could reach Florida.
And what I was referring to on the coast would have done a number
on our Navy.
|5.16.08 @ 2:08PM|#
"Worst example, ever. The Western Empire arguably fell because
of its failure to deal with the Goths. Sure, let those kids with
their black clothes and poor musical tastes move into your
territory, then encourage them to stay with regular bribes."
That and using them for your army and letting the army pick your
emperor usually after a prolonged civil war.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 2:09PM|#
John,
They were also under orders to fire if they were
attacked.
That is what "nuclear release" means.
|5.16.08 @ 2:09PM|#
John:
The hard truth is that the Iranians are going to build the bomb
unless we give them a reason not to.
I don't believe that's true. The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's
nuclear facilities all along, and they haven't uncovered
a shred of evidence indicating that Iran is pursuing nuclear
weaponry. Further,
U.S. intelligence agrees that Iran doesn't have an active
nuclear weapons program.
joe|5.16.08 @ 2:11PM|#
John,
Appeasement is what we have been doing with North Korea since
1994. We are paying them in hopes they don't break our
legs.
Well, they can't break our legs. We're paying them off so we don't
get our nice suit rumpled kicking the crazy homeless guy's
ass.
If what you say about Obama is true, then he is no different
than what we have now. Bush has been talking to the Iranians and
trying to get them to stop from going nuclear for eight years.
Yes, this is what makes the silly-assed talk from Bush and McCain
so vapid. There is nothing even approaching a policy or point
there; they don't actually disagree with what Obama is saying, any
more than they actually disagreed when he said he would hit al
Qaeda across the Pakistani border if there was actionable
intelligence. They're just calling him names over nothing, because
they think it's good politics. Today, perhaps for the first time in
our lifetimes, they are learning that it is not.
You can't just say "I will rely on diplomacy". That is
meaningless bullshit. "Diplomacy" could mean anything. True.
Good think nobody is saying that. Unfortunately, the president and
the Republican nominee actually ARE saying the equally-vapid
opposite: I won't use diplomacy. Fortunately, they don't mean it.
McCain never meant it, and Bush has learned his lesson, even if his
cheering section hasn't.
We can give them a reason to stop by getting the Russians,
Europe and the Chinese to sign up to real sanctions that would hurt
their economy. But, thus far no one has managed to convince the
world to do that. If Obama has a plan to do that, I would like to
hear it.
I don't think it's a quesiton of having "a plan." We know what the
strategy is here - use our clout to threaten, cajole, and convince
them to get on board. What needs to be different is that our
position needs to be stronger - and the Iraq War has certainly made
that position weaker - we need to have more freedom of movement to
threaten and cojole them - and the Iraq War has certainly limited
our freedom to operate and threaten them, and they know it - and
the people conducing the diplomacy need to be better at it. That
last bit includes everything from having top ambassadors whose
hearts are actually in it - unlike John Bolton, for example - to
having a president who is, himself, a better diplomat.
I agree, in cases when we are plainly stronger and not in any
serious danger, we might consider acting like the Romans i/r/t the
tribes out near the frontier.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Plus there was all that business with the Soviet submarines
which could have gotten out of control.
You mean those subs that continued to be so loud all the way
through the 1990s that our Navy never knew if they were doing it on
purpose or if they were really that sloppy?
Not much of a threat.
|5.16.08 @ 2:16PM|#
"I don't think it's a quesiton of having "a plan." We know what
the strategy is here - use our clout to threaten, cajole, and
convince them to get on board. What needs to be different is that
our position needs to be stronger - and the Iraq War has certainly
made that position weaker - we need to have more freedom of
movement to threaten and cojole them - and the Iraq War has
certainly limited our freedom to operate and threaten them, and
they know it - and the people conducing the diplomacy need to be
better at it."
How do we make our position stronger? Pull out of Iraq and show the
world that any two bit insurgency can beat us if they just hang in
there long enough?
The only way I can see to make our position stronger is to make an
actual credible threat of the use of force. What other leverage do
we have over them? It is difficult to imagine Obama giving such a
threat after promising to negotiate our way out of the
situation.
Further, it is more complicated than that. How hard are we willing
to lean on China and Russia over this? If so how? What are we going
to offer them and how is it going to complicate other areas? Obama
is not going to do jack shit about Iran. McCain might because they
might actually think he would bomb them, but even then I am not
optimistic. But Obama? No way. They will just laugh at him and
build nukes anyway. The only hope Obama has is that the Europeans
realize how weak he is and stop playing us off the Iranians and
stand up and do something. But, God that doesn't sound like much of
a hope.
|5.16.08 @ 2:17PM|#
It's a bad idea to encourage a belligerant pan handler.
It's also a bad idea to brawl with him in the middle of the street,
in your good suit, when you've got an important meeting to get
to.
So, what do you do?
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Guy Montag,
It wasn't that they were hiding that was the problem. The U.S. Navy
knew where they were and were trying to get them to surface
(correct me if I am wrong). So the issue becomes, what happens if a
shooting war erupts due this particular cat and mouse game?
neil|5.16.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Hey, what could be better for Israel than more empty threats
and destabilizing regional wars?
Democrats openly siding with the Palestinians and still getting
upwards of 90% of the Jewish vote?
Colin Clout|5.16.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Guy Montag,
Both the U.S. and the USSR had various nuclear artillery options
going back into the 50s. I wouldn't have wanted to have been in
Florida if one of them were airburst in my direction.
|5.16.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Abdul | May 16, 2008, 10:57am | #
I don't see the hypocrisy here.
McCain said "They're [Hamas] the government; sooner or later
McCains' statement doesn't rule out preconditions before
negotiation. McCain criticized Obama for saying no preconditions
were necessary, and not just with Hamas, but North Korea, Iran,
Etc.
Not so. McCain is blasting Obama claiming he wants to talk to
Hamas, which he doesn't, and it has nothing to do with
preconditions.
Meanwhile, only two years ago, McCain himself said, "we are going
to have to deal with them, one way or another. . ." And he says a
lot more if you listen to what he said.
That, my friends, is the definition of hypocrisy.
|5.16.08 @ 2:22PM|#
John, nobody can beat us in Iraq. Please, stop helpin al Qaeda's
propaganda efforts.
When we leave Iraq, it will be our decision, done for the purpose
of advancing our foreign policy, on our terms, and our troops will
leave unbeaten.
And yes, this will vastly improve our military and diplomatic
positions.
The only way I can see to make our position stronger is to make
an actual credible threat of the use of force. We have no
credible threat of the use of force as long as our ground forces
are 100% committed, and Iranian proxies sit astride their supply
lines in Iraq.
It is difficult to imagine Obama giving such a threat after
promising to negotiate our way out of the situation. I'm sure
it is, for you. Between your shallow, ill-informed understanding of
what diplomacy entails (hint: "...or I'll take you off my Christmas
card list" doesn't usually make an appearance) and the pretty
stories you tell yourself about Democrats, I believe you; you can't
imagine this.
|5.16.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Democrats openly siding with the Palestinians
You know, back in critical thinking class in college they taught us
that if you make a claim you should be able to support it with some
evidence.
You've just made an outrageous claim there, Neil. Have anything at
all to back it up? Or are you from the Kevin James school of
argumentation?
|5.16.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Ahmadinejad's current term will end in August 2009. This whole discussion is moot.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Ahmadinejad's current term will end in August 2009. This
whole discussion is moot.
And then the Iranian Gorbechev will be 'elected', the veils will
fall, the ladies will be driving in miniskirts and heels again,
they will be buying ads on Israeli TV promoting tourism. Will they
change their name to the Rainbow Puppy Republic?
joe|5.16.08 @ 2:40PM|#
You've just made an outrageous claim there, Neil. Have
anything at all to back it up?
Hi, Pug. Good to meet you; you must be new.
And then the Iranian Gorbechev will be 'elected', the veils
will fall, the ladies will be driving in miniskirts and heels
again, they will be buying ads on Israeli TV promoting tourism.
Will they change their name to the Rainbow Puppy
Republic?
But only if we kill 200,000 of them first.
neil|5.16.08 @ 3:30PM|#
You've just made an outrageous claim there, Neil. Have
anything at all to back it up?
Is it so hard for you to google that you can't confirm that the
support for anti-Israeli policies is almost entirely among
Democratic politicians, and yet Democrats get 80% to 90% of the
jewish vote anyway?
Here, I'll do one for you from politico.com:
Left
could push pro-Israel voters to GOP
|5.16.08 @ 4:06PM|#
That's right. All of my killer androids just starting issuing smoke and collapsing after reading it.
Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 4:09PM|#
All of my killer androids just starting issuing smoke and
collapsing after reading it.
What about the pleasuredroids?
Kolohe|5.16.08 @ 4:36PM|#
No, he didn't. He took military action (which failed) to
rescue them, and gave the Iranians exactly nothing.
This is not quite right:
Additionally,
Executive Orders 12277 through 12285 were issued by Carter[60]
releasing all assets belonging to the Iranian government and all
assets belonging to the Shah found within the United States and the
guarantee that the hostages would have no legal claim against the
Iranian government that would be heard in U.S. courts.
That said, that whole thing was a Kobayashi Maru to which there
were no good answers, even in hindsight.
|5.16.08 @ 6:35PM|#
The solution to the hostage crisis was so simple that Carter
must've been an imbecile not to have seen it. We should've told the
Iranians that if they didn't cough up our hostages and stop
behaving badly, then we'd let the U.S.S.R. know that we no longer
had any objections to them annexing Iran.
We'd have had the hostages back in two days, along with a nice card
apologizing for the misunderstanding. Of course, once Iran appeased
us in this way, we'd have told them we also wanted them to convert
back to Zoroastrianism and to give us free oil for the next
thousand years.
highnumber|5.16.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Couple of winners here:
If that is what Mathews is saying he is to some extent right in
that it is not always 1938.
That's John. I can read that one over and over. Beautiful, like
poetry and proverb, science fiction and satire, fortune cookie and
horoscope, all in one.
Guy hit one out of the park here:
The post at 3:45pm is an infinite loop.
I'd say "Good work, fellas," but, seriously, y'all wasted a lot of
time here, probably some blood pressure got raised, all for
nothing.
I think I'll head to an art gallery to drink.
Cheers!
highnumber|5.17.08 @ 12:58AM|#
I'unno who is Neil, but I'd had only a glass and a half of wine
at the art gallery when my glass got tossed, so I'm a little
peeved.
According to Dan T, he is not Neil. I asked him directly whether he
was Neil or MK2. He said that due to a new job he has not been
wasting as much time online and was not aware of these new
characters. Would he lie to me? I'unno. I'd bet a lot of money that
it's not Herr Moose, and I'm not a betting man. He's otherwise
preoccupied lately and it's not his style anyway. My gut also says
that it is not thoreau. There's a few minor characters that I think
make good suspects. One in particular, in fact, but maybe Neil is
legit. I've always thought he was fake, but I thought TallDave was
fake for a while too. (Guy Montag, on the other hand, is simply
someone's own wet dream of himself lived large. I've had
confirmation of his existence. He is, in fleshy life, exactly as
you imagine him to be.)
|5.17.08 @ 2:02PM|#
highnumber, wait! Who is Neil?
Neil is the anti-joe, the multiplier of thread posts, the destroyer
of worlds.
Was that so hard?
|5.17.08 @ 6:44PM|#
What amazes me is how in an age when the radio industry is in a
state of collapse, when scores of talented, capable hosts (many of
whom I know personally) are out of work due to consolidation and
mismanagement...a boob like Kevin James is gainfully employed on a
station our second largest market...
What me worry...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245