DKL,

Please tell us what the word “appeasement” means.

Please tell us, did Reagan appease Iranians during the 1980s? Mind you, this was during Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s infamous days. I do believe the record is clear. Reagan illegally sold weapons (that would be considered aiding and abetting our enemies) to the Iranians. He negotiated to have the hostages released. I wonder, will you ever see your dear holy Reagan in the proper light? Let us not forget that Reagan was the dog that fled with his tail between his legs when his nose got bloodied in Beirut. That’s Reagan.

What about Donald Rumsfeld appeasing some dude named Saddam Hussein. I do believe we sold him weapons and technology too. I do believe that Saint Reagan turned a blind eye when that same Hussein turned his weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

What about Reagan appeasing Gorbachev? Did Reagan not work to lower our strategic nuclear capability with the Soviets? That appeaser! Or is it a matter of IOIYAR (It’s Okay If You Are Republican)?

This is the illusion of the left wing of the Democratic party, and no matter how much Obama waves his arms and shouts, “Look, the president is talking about me!” the problem is bigger than Obama — much bigger.

Uh, White House officials told reporters that indeed Bush was talking about Obama. Nice try. But revisionist history will not work in this day and age. Go back to the drawing board, DKL.

Oh, and I hope you do a better job at defining “appeasement” than Kevin James did, or well, didn’t do. Or is that just a silly label for you right-wingers? Do you guys even know your own terms?

Queuno,

Ah, but Obama’s strategy is not a doomed strategy. In fact Bush’s own Secretary of Defense says we should talk to Iran, just like Obama says. Is Gates following a “doomed strategy?” If so, why does Bush keep him on? Would not Bush then become complicit in the “doomed strategy” if he continues paying for the services of a man who says we should “talk to terrorists?” Appeasing them and all? Please, queuno, let’s drop the silliness and get on to debates on substance.

My first point just shows the hypocrisy of a stance that those like DKL like to take. IOIYAR.

Dan, you’ve yet to bring up anything but red herrings. The problem here is that you don’t know enough about foreign policy to recognize this. I don’t have enough patience to wade through your infantile argumentation to teach it to you about foreign policy right now. I’ll just give you a quick rundown, point by point:

Reagan as working in concert with Israel to befriend and influence moderate elements in Iran. You use the term “Iranians” to imply that he was dealing with the Iranian government, when he was dealing with Iranian freelancers who were trying to gain influence in Iran.

Hussein was not our enemy when Rumsfeld was dealing with him.

Reagan’s arms control was different from SALT I (which guaranteed strategic parity) and SALT II (which guaranteed Soviet strategic superiority) in that it didn’t unilaterally sacrifice American interests and it had a cogent verification interests. That’s why he was so sharply criticized for jeopardizing the progress of the talks (e.g., when he refused to put SDI on the negotiating table).

Gates is talking about ways to gain leverage with Iran, the goal being to negotiate from a point of strength.

And White House officials certainly did not say that it was about Obama. White House officials said that Bush was talking about a group of people, of whom Obama was a member — which is exactly what I indicate. It’s odd that you’d say “nice try” when you make something up out of whole cloth to make your point.

I’ll grant that the difference between engagement and appeasement can be a subtle one that many people don’t grasp, but your problem isn’t actually that you don’t grasp it. It’s that you think that you’re actually not a complete moron.

As far as a definition: Appeasement means sacrificing key interests to an enemy for little more than the promise of future concessions. This can include granting talks to an enemy unilaterally insofar as it grants them legitimacy in the eyes of peers and potential enemies; e.g., the Catholic church has been haunted for decades by the photos of Vatican officials with Nazi leaders. A more recent example is J. Earl Carter’s discussions with Hamas.

Um, I realize that DKL thinks I am stupid anyway, so I’ll just go ahead and ask…what does the title have to do with the text?

I don’t see any connection.

Naismith, first of all, I don’t think that you’re stupid. There needn’t be any doubt about that, because I’d tell you if I thought so. Second, I was waiting for someone to ask about the title.

The point of the title that it’s as true that people have died because of Obama’s “lie” as it is that they’ve died from Bush’s.

But rest assured, if Obama gets elected to the US presidency, cute and innocent little children everywhere will die as a result! Just to prove that this is true, if Obama does get elected, then I’ll buy t-shirts for my kids that read, “I died because Obama lied.”

Is the Atonement of Christ appeasement?

Lincoln–it absolutely is, and it shows that Jesus Christ was not energized or experienced when it came to recognizing his enemies and dealing with them accordingly–preferably with pre-emptive strikes. He actually said we were to LOVE them. That would imply that we would TALK to them as though they were like us, or do ridiculous, pacifist stuff like the Sons of Ammon did, or give coat as well as cloak, walk two miles when THE ENEMY required only one. And the resurrection, promising life to all equally, even “enemies,” was clearly naive.

What I find morally naive is the assumption that diplomacy can’t work. We tend to hear more about diplomacy failing than we do about it succeeding, because the success stories are not publicized nearly as much.

And the Kevin James debacle was a hoot, wasn’t it? It was the perfect demonstration of the circular, ignorant, repetitive slogans which have replaced nuanced thought.

DKL,

You resort once again to personal attacks instead of sticking to the points of the debate. Perhaps I should not continue attempting a debate with you because clearly you cannot hold back your passions.

Dan, you’ve yet to bring up anything but red herrings. The problem here is that you don’t know enough about foreign policy to recognize this.

Actually, I do know that I am bringing up a red herring. My point is not to directly refute your main point, but to show the hypocrisy of your point. See, it is okay for a Republican to talk to our enemies, because by default Republicans don’t appease. No siree. It’s part of the illusion, the fake act, to pretend that Republicans stand from a position of strength (when really the opposite has generally been true) vis-a-vis our enemies. See, by taking out Saddam, Republicans gave Ahmadinejad Iraq on a silver platter. Ahmadinejad and his ilk didn’t need to much at all to gain huge control and influence in Iraq. Just a few Iraqi militias to train here, a few to fund there, and poof, he has control of most of Iraq. Meanwhile, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars, lose over 4000 American soldiers so far, and still Iran has more influence and power in Iraq than we do. We do not work in Iraq from a position of strength, and that is solely due to the silly Republican ideology.

Hussein was not our enemy when Rumsfeld was dealing with him.

Ah yes, he was our freedom fighter. IOIYAR.

Gates is talking about ways to gain leverage with Iran, the goal being to negotiate from a point of strength.

It is your burden of proof to show that Barack Obama’s position differs from Bob Gates’ position. You are the one challenging that Obama’s foreign policy is that of appeasement. Prove it. Show us his words. If you cannot, then you must recant your words.

And White House officials certainly did not say that it was about Obama.

Um, yes they did.

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

You use the term “Iranians” to imply that he was dealing with the Iranian government, when he was dealing with Iranian freelancers who were trying to gain influence in Iran.

Nice try again, but no matter how many degrees Reagan tried to get himself from the Iranian government, it doesn’t change the fact that Reagan tried to negotiate the release of the hostages with the Iranian government. You accuse me of a lack of foreign policy knowledge, but then you go spinning the events to reflect well on your Saint Reagan. That doesn’t do you well, DKL, but shows that you’re nothing more than a partisan hack who cannot stand reality.

Dan: You resort once again to personal attacks instead of sticking to the points of the debate.

Look, Dan: You’ve either have to say intelligent things or suffer being told that you’re a moron. Saying stupid things and objecting to being called stupid is trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

DKL,

I do not say stupid, moronic things. The fact that you resort to calling it that proves that you cannot handle actually debating the merits of the points. Fundamentally, anyone that doesn’t think like you do, DKL, is stupid or moronic.

“No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power.”

What an idiotic statement. If the guys were only in it for “power” they wouldn’t be killing themselves, would they.

Personally, I’d be embarrassed to admit I was even listening to Bush anymore, let alone analyzing what he says.

You’d have more fun analyzing a day old monkey turd.

“Do you guys not realize how badly you will lose in November when everybody gets to vote?”

Dan, both the most recent Gallup and Rasmussen polls show McCain in the lead in a head to head against Obama. So I guess most of us don’t realize.

Bill: Remember, Dan, you’re dealing with someone who was sure that Romney would get the nomination.

If you actually read what I’ve written about the Republican primary process, then you’d know that I was sure that Romney would not get the nomination. I wasn’t sure of who would win, but I thought it likely that Giuliani would get it. It’s pretty clear that you have no idea who you’re dealing with.

Dan, nearly everything that you’ve said about politics since you’ve started commenting here is either incorrect or irrelevant. Your skills with logic are terrible. And your habit when you’re shown to be wrong is to drop the issue rather than concede — the hallmark of intellectual dishonestly.

In this case, I knew exactly what you’re trying to get at in your first comment. You’re trying point to instances of Republican administrations doing what you think J. Earl Carter did when he spoke to Hamas last month. Each of instances remains irrelevant for the reasons I gave. You respond by stating your intent, which doesn’t change anything, but because you’re no good at logic, you think it does.

And again: You cite a news source that indicates that Bush was referring to “the presidential candidate and others in his party”, i.e., Bush was referring to a larger group that was inclusive of Obama. This is exactly what I’ve indicated twice. The fact that your assertion that Bush referred to Obama is a distortion of mainstream media reports doesn’t make it any less fabricated. Again, you’re making this stuff up. What’s worse is that the source you cite for evidence of your position actually proves mine. How can you expect me to not call this kind of behavior idiotic?

Yes, I should have said “with someone who predicted Romney would win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida.” And there was that post, “Romney the Frontrunner” (followed up by “Romney the Underdog”).

wow, it’s scary to see the viewpoints taken by some of our fellow members here on this political thread. No wonder we try not to get into politics in church. What a load of crap this appeasement arguement is. Ahmadinejad is nothing at all like Hitler was. He has no imperial designs and has never attacked another country. There has never been any good evidence he was seeking after nuclear weapons (unlike the only nuclear armed nation in the region… Israel). Looks like some on this blog have been drinking the official Kool-aid of the Bush administration. Just like the Kool-aid that was ingested before the Iraq war. There is no need to get vicious with Iran. In fact, we should go back to the Iranian proposal of 2003 when they offered to give recognition of Israel and withdraw support of Hamas and Hezbollah in return for normalization of relations with the USA. But, Bush threw that one back in their face didn’t he. No appeasement of the “terrorists” there.

For some sensible commentary on this appeasement nonsense, check this LA Times op-ed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,6293795.story

which includes this gem from the late, great WFB:

When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right’s leader, complained that the act of “diplomatic sentimentality” signaled the “death rattle of the West.”

DKL,

It seems to me you are preparing yourself for an Obama Presidency, no?

David–blogging is not really the place to display nuanced thought, is it. We have room for a little satire and a few incendiary words. Most of your introductory blog-post is a quite of a man whose father did actually know something about diplomacy. (Why on earth would China be granted “most favored nation” status given the plethora of human rights abuses there? There IS a reason, but you need to understand a different mindset and culture–or depend on diplomats who’ve made it their life’s work to understand.)

A real answer to George W. Bush’s simple-minded speech, which uses false analogy in a way few presidents have had the simplicity to pursue, should come in a much longer format than a blog. The questions are actually complex, and phrases like “embolden our enemies” etc. reveal themselves as what they really are–hollow slogans for lazy people who maybe don’t know much at all about history or even the definition of appeasement.

I am assuming that, given the chance, you could pursue a meaningful discussion of the real issues and keep away from ad hominem arguments (as, I hope, everyone else could). I am pretty confident in my sense of history and lessons we should’ve learned. I agree, sadly, that sometimes war is a necessary evil. But we spend far too much time finding excuses to quickly pursue what should be the last option–to be used only when all others are exhausted.

Ultra-conservatives only “know” one factoid from all of History. And even though they live in that shallow kiddy pool of historical interpretation, where the only thing that the past can teach us is that it was wrong for Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler, they consistently misinterpret the one event they know of.

It was not wrong of Chamberlain to give the Sudetenland to Hitler. It was right. Have all of Czeckoslovakia, Hitler — for all it matters — frankly, we can’t afford this month to keep it from you. Likewise, it wouldn’t matter if we gave South Vietnam to China in 1963 or Afghanistan to the Soviet Union in 1979. Want to eat that, Russia? Why not eat more? Gorge yourself and collapse all the sooner.

The problem with ultra-conservatives is that they don’t really believe in America, in capitalism, and in democracy. If they actually believed the in the philosophies they wear on their lapel pins, ultra-conservatives wouldn’t feel compelled to cheat (counterproductively). You wouldn’t feel compelled to support anti-Communist totalitarian dictators, if you actually believed in that capitalism and democracy were stronger forces than central-planning and Marxism. What a wonderful world we’d live in today if Afghanistan were a despondent, irreligious, post-Soviet Kazakhstan, instead of the terrorist hotbed that it is.

Chamberlain’s error was not selling out the Czechs. Who cares? They weren’t a real county yet anyway. Chamberlain’s error was imagining that letting Hitler digest a bit of central Europe would be the end of it. What he should have done was appease Hitler with the Czech Republic (and then later give Hitler Poland, for all it matters), while meanwhile building up British military defenses to withstand the inevitable naval and air invasion that was coming. That was Chamberlain’s error, quite contrary to the standard interpretation of the only event that ever occured in the human history, as remembered by modern ultra-conservatives.

Guy Murray: It seems to me you are preparing yourself for an Obama Presidency, no?

LOL. Yeah. I’m more than a bit resigned to it. The Republican party is in a shambles, and only a really loud wakeup call is going to bring it around.

John Hamer, that’s an interesting analysis. I agree that Chamberlain’s appeasement (that’s Chamberlain’s word, btw) causes him to get a bad rap. That’s one reason I quoted Churchill’s eulogy. Most people don’t know that his was the government that declared war on Germany after its invasion of Poland. You’re right that one of his errors was his assumption that Hitler’s appetite could be satiated (though I don’t believe it was his only error). Moreover, this error presupposes the outlook I describe in my post in which one relegates her opponent to the role of someone who is merely reacting. Chamberlain erroneously supposed that Hitler had some justification for his actions, and that once his justifications ran out his behavior would improve.

Moreover, I believe that it would have been easier to stop Hitler sooner rather than later. William Shirer and Hugh Trevor-Roper certainly thought so.

I also disagree with whether Czechoslovakia was a real country. It was the only successful democracy remaining from the nation-building efforts that followed in the wake of WWI.

It’s possible that the entire Holocaust might have been avoided if Churchill had ascended to the Conservative party leadership sooner. When he was talking early on about how dangerous Hitler was, everybody dismissed him as a crank. Alas, the Holocaust is an indelible part of the 20th century, the ultimate tragedy sitting atop the laundry list of civilization’s shattered dreams that filled the last century from end-to-end. Subsequent history is inconceivable without it. Asking how history might have unfolded if the Holocaust hadn’t occurred is like asking “what if Caesar hadn’t been assassinated?” The way WWII played out has shaped our thought about world affairs more than any other event before our since.

You’re opinion about the durability of capitalism and democracy reminds me of the famous statement by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (he was, interestingly, addressing the perceived threat of Mormon Polygamy in Utah):

If civilization has got the better barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization. A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy must first have become so degenerate that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse until destroyed, and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.

This bursts with the brilliant confidence of Victorian optimism; to read it is to want to believe it. Indeed, the world would be a better place if the brutal course of history hadn’t repeatedly dashed such lofty sentiments to bits. I can’t speak for others, but for me, it’s not so much that I don’t believe in democracy or capitalism. It’s that history teaches us to be fearful for the permanence of human achievement.

Margaret Young, And nuanced expression isn’t as fun as soundbites. Even so, your accusation that Bush is being simple-minded reminds me of the criticism offered against Reagan’s “evil-empire” outlook. Some people really did think that he’d bring about WWIII. It’s difficult to remember how controversial it was for him to say “Mr. Gorbochev, tear down this wall.”

I look forward to that conversation. I’ll bring a Bush/Cheney bumber sticker for you.

So DKL,

why don’t you write a post as nuanced and thoughtful as your comment #40? Can you see the difference between the two?

DKL–thank you for the offer of the bumper sticker. I know exactly where I’ll put it.

Margaret, I certainly picked up on the sarcasm of most of your comment, but I missed that your initial sentence was in that same posture. My apologies.

ESO, if you have a complaint about inserting Obama into Bush’s speeches, you should take it up with Obama, since he’s the one who’s inserted himself into Bush’s speech by alleging that he’s the primary target of the speech.

But if you’re intent on offering a lazy reading of my post, I’ll give you an executive summary: There has always been people who imagine that we can simply work out our differences with our enemies. The core mistake in this way of thinking is that it assumes that our enemies are doing little more than reacting to our own actions, and that they are in some way legitimately justified in their own beliefs. Though Obama is certainly one of these people, the problem is much larger.

If you think that Bush’s speech was childish, then you should also take it up with the Knessett, who interrupted Bush with applause after he made the remarks that I cite in my post.

I’ve already brought up Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union, which was hailed as childish by his enemies. I’ll offer a more specific example.

In 1981, when the Soviets brutally put down strikes by the Polish Solidarity Union, the Washington Post ran the headline, “Soviets Reacting with Restraint,” and the editor of the Washington post gave a radio interview placing the blame for the crackdown on the Reagan administration. He believed that if we’d have offered the Soviets more aid, they’d have been more lenient. Like Borah, who quixotically believed he might have prevented the inevitable, the editor of the Washington Post believed (a) that the Soviets were in some sense justified in pushing marshall law onto Poland, and (b) that the human-rights violations that resulted could have been prevented if Reagan had used the right measure of incentives.

There’s a certain innocent logic to this type of position. But when you combine it with vain delusions of sophistication, you get institutions like the Washington Post scoffing with puffed-up, self-imagined sophistication at the very notion that the Soviets were being pro-actively evil. This is just as prevalent among today’s liberals as it has been for the past 40 years.

And this notion that people have mentioned that you shouldn’t refer to domestic policy disputes in speeches on foreign soil is utterly without basis. The real shame is that ignorant people everywhere take this week-old invention as a timeless truth.

The problem with this whole appeasing the enemy arguement in the first place, is that we wouldn’t have very many enemies if we didn’t go around creating them to begin with. Was Iran our enemy before 1954? Did Iran chant death to America before we sheltered the Shah and refused his extradition? Was Iran proclaiming herself our enemy in 2003 when the Ayatollah reached out to the US government in with an unprecedented list of concessions that Bush threw back in Iran’s face?

No children will die if we talk to Iran.

We need to let the IAEA continue to do it’s work. We need to press for IAEA inspections to begin in Israel. We need to support measures like FISSBAN at the UN in which fissile nuclear material production would be banned (usually it is only the US and Israel that oppose that good piece of legislation while nations like Iran and the rest of that region support it).

Iran is killing no children now. However, our biggest ally in the middle east is killing children on a regular basis in Gaza. Bush called Israel a beacon of democracy recently. On almost that same day, Israeli police brutally suppressed a Nakba march by Arab-Israeli citizens.

Iran has its problems to be sure, but they are not the Nazis Bush would make them out to be.

Iran is killing no children now…

Just criminals, converts, and homosexuals.

In spite of killing criminals (not a whole lot different from the US), and homosexuals (crimes that are definitely hyped up in our media) these constitute no reason for us not to talk to them. Heck, we talk to Uzbekistan who boil their political opponents to death, we loved Suharto who killed upwards of a million landless peasants in 1965 and committed genocide in East Timor. We talk to North Korea all the time. We talk to Pakistan and India who have just developed nuclear weapons. We talk to Saudi Arabia who commit crimes against its people at least on par with Iran if not worse. Worse of all, we talk to Israel who have developed nuclear weapons, (probably with the partial help of secrets stolen from the US) and regularly massacre people under their own occupational care.

Nate C.,

I wonder if you knew that the CIA placed the Ba’ath Party in power in Iraq in the 1960s…We do indeed create enemies.

DKL,

What do you care who I’m grouped with? You already think of me as an “inveterate anti-American,” to use your words. As for the CIA putting the Ba’ath Party in power, that’s fairly factual, if you read Legacy of Ashes, which cites original CIA documents. I don’t know why you see it as anything conspiratorial. I mean, if you were to ask someone to describe a “secret combination” you could not do worse than to point firstly to the CIA.

As for the rest, that’s okay, DKL. I accept your concession and defeat.

Dan, the problem isn’t that it’s not factual (unlike you, I was aware of this fact long before I read Legacy of Ashes). The problem is that it’s not relevant. As I’ve said before, when you’re not making stuff up, you’re using loopy logic. You’re really not any more liberal than a whole bunch of people that I discuss politics with on a regular basis — including some of the commenters on this thread to whom I’ve responded thoughtfully.

I honestly don’t care how you read my contempt for you. Though it’s direct to clever insults at you, it’s not something that gets me worked up or angry. On a good day, you make me shrug. On a bad day, I roll my eyes. In either case, I think to myself, “What a moron.”

Thanks for posting that, Dr. That’s a very shrewd article.

Don’t worry DKL, I don’t take your insults personally. It is par for the course. Your comments are actually fairly light compared to others that I have endured. I feel just fine because to this point I haven’t been wrong on foreign policy.

Dan,

You are amazing. “I haven’t been wrong on foreign policy.” “I’ve never been wrong on Iraq.” In 1193+ comments, you’ve never been wrong on those subjects. Just saying that makes you a fool. Just imagining that makes you a fool.

For the record, you have been, and continue to be, terribly wrong in matters of foreign policy/war. Your comments are asinine and entirely political, rather than based on complete facts or even the truth, for that matter. Just look at an Iraq war now relegated almost entirely to one province.

You continue to march 1-2 biased sources and profess some form of moral high ground where none exists. Not to mention the paradoxical double-standard arguments you only repeat from the liberal toolbox. Intervention creates enemies and suffering for us. But open dialogue with everyone is good under all circumstances. Sure they might have an agenda of blood and horror, but shoot, we should hear them out, legitimize them. In and of itself, morally an intervention. Chomsky would be proud of Bush to some extent, if he had no political agenda.

Sometimes diplomacy doesn’t work. There is no perfectly repeatable answer to any question, unless you simply avoid the question. DKL has actually shown that very well in his example. And he also shown that you can’t blame the people who tried, they had the best intentions. The question is whether you simply repeat the misfortunes of the past, or do you try something different.

The only thing that “creates” enemies is one person’s choice to hate another, perhaps for no other reason than skin tone, and often less than that. Politics is the ultimate straw man for simple hatred. That is Bush’s speech writer’s point. And he’s dead on. What Bush does with that and what he can put together verbally on the spot is another story all together.

On with the cat fight…

DKL,
“Dan, you don’t want to be grouped in with the likes of Curtis. Read his blog. He’s an anti-Semetic conspiracy theorist.”

Hmmm. Anti-semitic. I assume you are referring to my criticism of Israeli policy on my blog or my mention of the fact that they possess a couple hundred nuclear weapons that are not monitored by the IAEA as Israel has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Usually the term, “anti-semitic” is a term used to refer to anyone who objects to zionist policy in Israeli politics in which case the term, “anti-zionist” would be more appropriate and more acceptable to me. “Anti-semitic” is the cry that is usually used to stifle any sort of substantive criticism of Zionist policy and taint anyone associated with opposition to Israeli zionist policy.

Thus, I will approve the term, “anti-zionist”, but any accusation of anti-semitism will have to come with some explanation from your side. Association with a person like me shouldn’t stain Dan in a reasonable person’s eyes.

As far as the term, “conspiracy theorist” goes, which part of my comments above, or my postings on my website do you consider “conspiracy theory?”

Is it conspiracy theory that I mention we are friends with Uzbekistan which tortures and oppresses political opponents? Is it conspiracy that we supported Suharto in the massacre of his own people and in his genocidal actions against the East Timorese? These are all well documented facts you know. Is is certainly well known that we talk to Kim Jong Il. Anyone who has been paying attention knows we have normal relations with Pakistan and India who have departed from the NPT and made their own nuclear weapons and we even have a nuclear energy pact with India. There is not much debate to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime that we love to snuggle with. And it would be pretty hard to hide our relationship with Israel who is presently in defiance to numerous UN Security Council resolutions and regularly kills palestinian arabs, recently killing about 120 people in February.

What part of this is conspiracy theory?

Is it not that you are trying to smear my name here so that my points will not be taken seriously?

Curtis,

You said: “Why not talk to Ahmadinejad then?”

Seriously? From the article referenced in comment 62:

“When the U.S. negotiates with “terrorists and radicals,” it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake. State sponsors use others as surrogates, but they are just as much terrorists as those who actually carry out the dastardly acts. Legitimacy and international acceptability are qualities terrorists crave, and should therefore not be conferred casually, if at all.”

Then you said “[FDR] said that Somoza is an SOB, but that he’s our SOB. We’ve supported plenty of SOBs throughout history and we’ve made many a man to appear as the devil himself so as to sufficiently manufacture consent for military action or other policies of aggression.”

Again, what is your point? I hear what you are saying. You believe that the U.S. Government is demonizing an otherwise stalwart human being in Ahmadinejad. This demonization is a cover-up to justify military action so we can get at their oil and help the Saudis with whom our government likes to snuggle. Once we have their oil, the big corporations will use it to make gobs of money–enough to fill their swimming pools with $50 bills–with no regard to their carbon footprint and their impact on the environment.

And no one sees this but you.

Let’s just imagine, though, for the sake of argument–that there was a fictional leader of an Arab country who is really short. Let’s also imagine that this height challenged fictional Arabic leader wanted access to nuclear secrets and technology that he may or may not use for energy. We won’t know what he’s doing because he refuses to show us. Let’s also imagine him to be a bit unstable–making comments about the holocaust being fiction and his desire to wipe Israel off the map (or at least move them to Europe). We can imaginarily assume that said fictional dictator would have sole access to the triggers and targets of any and all imaginary nuclear devices that may or may not be fabricated from newly acquired nuclear secrets and technology.

Would this be a problem for you? If not, why not? What should we do with Ahmadinejad? Apparently you think we should talk to him. What if he doesn’t come around? Then what? Spell out your pathway to success.

Now I want specifics or I’m done debating this with you. Seriously. No more typing in circles. No more going back to FDR and Reagan. Set aside the things that you think got us here. Take us from where we are now to where you want us to be–you know, like Obama would have to do.

Curtis,

Truly the most anti-semitic people are the ones who play with Israel’s safety for their own political satisfaction, or (in the case of people like John Hagee) are stoking up the violence of Arabs around Israel to bring about their own selfish prophecies to be. Do you really think that a Hagee of this world wants to see Jews remain as Jews in their own state at peace with their neighbors? Truly the worst anti-semites out there are the right-wing Christians who are using the state of Israel to bring to pass the Second Coming. What happens at the Second Coming (or the events previous to it) to the Jews? Doesn’t the world turn against them? Don’t many of them die? Don’t they all supposedly convert to Christianity? THAT’S the real reason right-wing Christians are “pro-Israel.” The Rapture!

To be an actual friend of Israel is to tell them when it is wise to make peace with their neighbors. The real friends of Israel were Carter and Clinton who actually got peace treaties between Israel and two of her neighbors. Carter got the big one: Egypt. And look, Egypt and Israel have been at peace for nearly 30 years now. Amazing what diplomacy can do!

This is why Carter is denigrated so much by right-wing Christians, because he is undermining their core beliefs! See, the Second Coming MUST happen the way they see it. Gog and Magog MUST be Syria and Iran and Russia. We can’t possibly have peace between Israel and Iran/Syria, because if there is peace between them, there isn’t war. And if there isn’t war, how CAN the Second Coming happen? There must be war for Christ to come, see. This is why they denigrate diplomacy.

This is spot on.

The president’s attempt at argumentum ad hitlerum was useful, however, in that it clearly displayed, once again, the simplistic national security mentality of conservatives. In their uncomplicated worldview, every actor can be cast in one of three roles: Hitler, Chamberlain or Churchill.

For conservative national security policy to function properly, it must always be 1938, the storm must always be gathering. There must always be new Hitlers to confront: Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein again, and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are among the various new Adolf Hitlers against whom America has faced off during my lifetime. And, of course, with new Hitlers always come new Neville Chamberlains who refuse to see the dangers. Naturally, the right always get to play Winston Churchill, who is, in their colouring book version of history, the paragon of manly manliness, knocking assorted Chamberlains aside as they brusquely sign declaration of war, and then reach for the brandy and cigars.

But what if discarded the facile conservative equation of “national security” with “the willingness to use force,” understanding that real national security involves having the judgment to know when and how to use force productively? Let’s grant for the moment President Bush’s contention that Iran is the new Nazi Germany*. Given the fact that the policies of George Bush have done so much to empower the Nazis in Europe … oops, I mean Iran in the Middle East, it’s clear that in this interpretation, the role of Neville Chamberlain is played by George Bush.

Remember, Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to the Germans. Bush gave Iraq to the Iranians. Sounds about right to me.

The invasion of Iraq removed Iran’s greatest enemy and facilitated the creation of a pro-Iran government in Iraq. During Iran’s massively destructive eight year war with its rival Iraq, Iran’s ruling clerics could probably not in their wildest dreams have imagined a victory over Iraq as complete as that which was provided them by the United States in 2003, paid in the treasure of US taxpayers, and the blood and limbs of US troops and Iraqis. The invasion also created the conditions for al-Qaida, (who had previously not existed in Iraq) to foment a bloody sectarian civil war, resulting in massive population displacements which will affect the country’s politics, and the region, for years to come. It has been a disaster, both for the people of the Middle East, and for America’s reputation.

President Bush and his conservative allies presented the invasion of Iraq as the act of a Churchill, a bold and heroic (so heroic!) thrust at the heart of tyranny. Five years later, a strong consensus regards the Iraq invasion as a feckless and impetuous blunder based on a serious misapprehension of the region and a total lack of appreciation of the potential consequences. It was the act of a Chamberlain.

As with Chamberlain’s declaration of “Peace in our time!” Bush’s grandiose speeches have done little more than flatter his own vanity, and the vanity of his political supporters, at the cost of alienating potential allies, both at home and abroad. Bush’s projection of an “axis of evil” where none, in fact, existed, and his careless conflation of various groups and movements into an imagined “Islamofascist” front has weakened moderates in the Middle East while emboldening the most hard-line elements throughout the region.

Just as Winston Churchill had to come in and clean up George Bush’s … oops, I mean Neville Chamberlain’s mess, so the next president will be faced, on day one, with problems created or exacerbated by the incompetence of his predecessor. Certainly, the next president will be confronted with enemies, but none that comes close to threats Americans have faced in the past. Let us hope the next president has the courage not to confuse militarism with strength, the intelligence not to confuse appeasement with engagement, and the grace to discern stubbornness from resolve. And while we’re at it, let’s hope he can discern a decent foreign policy address from a cheap stunt.

Indeed.

Fun stuff, Dan. Too bad it hasn’t anything to do with the speech that he gave. But it is pretty funny to read people equating the loan secular, liberal-style democracy in the middle east as pro-Iranian. That’s like calling Saudi Arabia pro-Iranian. What makes it all the more comic is that the Guardian is a frequent critic of the US policy of having no official diplomatic relationship with the Iranian government. If we did re-open the US Embassy in Iran and the Iranian Embassy in the US, would that make us pre-Iranian?

But let’s take a close look at the comparison:

Pre-Hitler Czechoslovakia: independent democracy
Hitler-era Czechoslovakia: owned by German dictatorship

Pre-Bush Iraq: Independent dictatorship with virulent hatred of Iran
Bush-Era Iraq: independent democracy with normal relations with Iran

Perhaps you’d add some clarity, but I just don’t see it. In the absence of such clarity, the straw at which the author of your Guardian article is grasping must be considered demonstrably false.

Besides, up until now, you’ve given me the impression that you thought it was a bad idea to pit Saddam Hussien against Iran to further US interests. Now you’re trying to say that removing Saddam Hussein was a bad move because it removed an enemy of Iran that furthered US interests?

Even so, using this thread to cross-post lengthy excerpts from editorials that share your opinion is pretty lame.

LOL. Your notion that there’s a pummeling going on here reflects a major disconnect between your perception and reality.

I responded to the Guardian editorial’s accusation that there’s a parallel between giving up Czechoslovakia to German military invasion and liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussien. You haven’t said anything that refutes this. All you’ve done is take issues with a few minor points that are largely irrelevant — if I grant everything you say for arguments sake, it still doesn’t clarify the parallel between liberating Iraq and forfeiting Czechoslovakia to German military force. Again, more loopy logic that shows you don’t know the first thing about the logical structure of argumentation.

Even so, you should read the news, Lebanon’s “democratic” government basically stopped functioning about 18 months ago. And the Palestinians are not a sovereign nation — they’re part of Israel — the only nation in the Middle East that allows Palestinians to vote. There is a Palestinian nation in the world, and it’s name is Jordan. As fate would have it, it’s a monarchy.

# 78 Dan,

Those were horrible arguments. I fail to see how recognizing that Lebanon is a democracy imflicts any damage. I also fail to see how Palestinian authority is undermined when and if they get along with Israel instead of driving trucks full of bombs into schools. And an editorial to prove your point? Wow.

# 72, On to proving you wrong:

1.
That is a widely accepted and generally true point. Much is yet to be seen, but I agree with such sentiments up until 2007.

2.
I won’t even bring up the same Colin Powell paradox we’ve gone through before. This argument has little weight because of the conflicting testimony and information that was present at the time. I’m sure you had the intelligence in front of you and made the right decision, though, not from a political position, but from an overly-informed citizen perspective. Otherwise, hindsight grants you no merit.

3.
A) Time will tell.
B) Iran’s influence comes from oil and guns/suicide troops.

4.
Good to know Iran doesn’t want war.
“Israel will be wiped off the map soon. Here is a display of our missle systems. We will not say whether we are feeding weapons to Shia militias in Iraq, even though our name is on them.”
You probably have Iran pegged, though.

5.
Wow. You argue for deterrence. And our relations with India and China are based on their nuclear capability? How about the economic opportunity that has and continues to reside there because of foreign business-friendly laws. Do you know U.S. policy on the use of Nuclear weapons, let alone nuclear power? This is a knee-jerk use of logic and a mix-up of respect and fear.

“I could go on. But see, I am not wrong. I just don’t see the world through your paradigm, nasamomdele…Unfortunately for you, it hasn’t worked as you see it. I’m sorry dude, but life sucks that way. If they would have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003, I would have begrudgingly conceded and gone back to consider where I got things wrong. Can you do the same?”

Dan, you’ve made absolutely clear that your paradigm is left as all get out- inherently biased.

I have declared no such feet-planted position, relying only on what unbiased facts I can find to shape my worldview.

True, my view is not always right, but I never have and never would say I have never been wrong on anything.

That is why you are the fool. That and when things begin to change for the better, you cling like a little girl to the doll of your passionate political position, unable to see progress with your eyes closed tight, just trying to hold on to one argument that did have merit. Unfortunately, those days are gone. Your paradigm is stuck.

-Just look at an Iraq war now relegated almost entirely to one province.-
“Really? One province? You sure about that? Make sure of your facts, nasamomdele.”

Almost entirely. Work (not necessarily battle-microlending, rebuilding schools, clinics, leveled houses, relationship-building with shieks, arresting corrupt officials when asked to by Iraqis) is being done everywhere, no doubt, but the krux of the enemy there is left to Mosul, but I know you don’t follow any credible on-the-ground non-partisan sources for your information. You beat a liberal drum.

“Uh, nice straw man, but I never said open dialog with “everyone” or under “all circumstances.” Again, nice fake strawman. But alas, not reality.”

I guessed you would retreat here, but you take up the “power” of diplomacy again next…

-Sometimes diplomacy doesn’t work-
“Indeed. Those would be the times where one party is doing diplomacy only for show, so that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is really sad that Republicans have forgotten the power of diplomacy. Have they not been reading the book of their zen master Kissinger?”

You’ll have to show that the other side does anything more than diplomacy for show, while I can say easily, without equivocation, that Bush knows nothing about diplomacy. Your uncanny political agenda is your greatest flaw to your logic.

-And he(DKL) has also shown that you can’t necessarily blame the people who tried, they had the best intentions.-
“Who? Who are you talking about here? Bush? The best intentions? You kidding me?”

I thought I referenced DKL’s citation of Churchill regarding Chamberlain. You didn’t put much effort into this.

“Huh, ironically Bush repeated the misfortunes of the past. We intervened where we didn’t need to.”

True, though given the option between consession (let Saddam be a dishonest weasel about WMDs, whether he has them or not) and military action, Bush chose the later, obviously. You make a brilliantly obvious point.
Gaze into the crystal ball and tell us what the ending would be if Bush had done something else. Utopia? Arab-Israeli hand-in-hand peace with the B-52s playing the party?

nasamomdele,

#81,

1.

That is a widely accepted and generally true point. Much is yet to be seen, but I agree with such sentiments up until 2007.

Um, what changed in 2007? Did we refocus on Afghanistan? Did we decide to after the bad guys in Pakistan? If not, then nothing changed. Oh yeah, we put even MORE soldiers in Iraq, where the bad guys are NOT.

By the way, you want to know why Bush suddenly shifted to putting more troops in Iraq in 2007? Because in 2006, his party got trounced at the elections. He suddenly realized that he was actually being held accountable. Too bad that the Surge failed in its main core point: political reconciliation.

2. There wasn’t enough actual evidence in 2002 to make the case that Saddam was a threat to us, nasamomdele. Most of it was based on false assumptions. The problem we faced in 2002 was that we, as a nation, were still too afraid so close to 9/11. And our blood was boiling too much to consider things rationally. It was one of the saddest points in the history of our country. But alas, there was enough evidence out there that Bush and his supporters were lying about Iraq. But because so many were looking for vengeance (or like Thomas Friedman said, to go over there and burst that bubble by saying “suck on this” Arabs!), we didn’t care to scrutinize what our leaders were saying. So sad.

3. Nasamomdele, truly you do not understand the Middle East. Iran’s influence in Iraq does not come from oil, or from their “suicide warriors.” It is truly silly for you to suggest otherwise. Com’on dude, you can figure it out. It really isn’t that hard. Why would Iran have such an influence in Iraq?

4. So, if I understand you correctly, if someone is displaying their weaponry, it is to show that they want war? So every time the United States puts on a weapons test (or Pakistan, or India, or China, or Russia, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or…well everybody else), it is to show that they want war?

Truly, what is the difference between Iran saying that Israel will be wiped off the map (which is not what they have said), and the United States saying that Iran will be wiped off the map (which we have actually said)?

5. On deterrence. Tell me, before Communist China had nuclear weapons, just what were our relations with them? Why did Nixon go to China? Why did he shake hands with Mao? Do you really know so little of foreign policy? We did not open economically with both India and China until after they got their nuclear weapons. With India, we had little relations before that, but not anything like we have had since they got their nuclear weapons. And China? Please. We did not care if China remained a backwards country of 1 billion people. As long as they were communist, we cared less. But once they got their nuclear weapons, we respected them.

Dan, you’ve made absolutely clear that your paradigm is left as all get out- inherently biased.

You bet I am biased. I want to see the Republican party shamed for what they’ve done these past seven years. I want there to actually be punishment for bad deeds. I want those who set us on this path receive the wages of their sins. You bet I am biased. These people took my country into a war I did not approve of. There has to be some kind of consequence for that. If not, then when I am in power, what is to stop me from doing the same thing? Or is this another IOIYAR?

I have declared no such feet-planted position, relying only on what unbiased facts I can find to shape my worldview.

I am sorry to say, nasamomdele, that as long as you back anything Bush does, you are not relying solely on “unbiased facts.”

Almost entirely. Work (not necessarily battle-microlending, rebuilding schools, clinics, leveled houses, relationship-building with shieks, arresting corrupt officials when asked to by Iraqis) is being done everywhere, no doubt, but the krux of the enemy there is left to Mosul, but I know you don’t follow any credible on-the-ground non-partisan sources for your information. You beat a liberal drum.

There is nothing wrong at all with the liberal drum. In fact, it has been quite accurate over these last several years. I’m going to stick with it until it no longer is accurate. With that all said, I find Michael “Military Propagandist” Gordon’s latest piece in the New York Times fascinating. He doesn’t talk at all about Mosul. Huh…

I guessed you would retreat here, but you take up the “power” of diplomacy again next…

There was no retreat, because you didn’t attack my position. You created a straw man and attacked the straw man. As the straw man was not me, why would I need to defend myself? If you come after my positions, then you bet I will respond. But if you keep putting up straw men, I have no need to respond to them. Forget the straw men, nasamomdele. They are weak opponents. Come after me directly.

You’ll have to show that the other side does anything more than diplomacy for show, while I can say easily, without equivocation, that Bush knows nothing about diplomacy.

You mean like diplomacy with results? I believe I did provide that. Carter, who you love to denigrate, used diplomacy to get two warring nations to make peace. That was results! Clinton got two nations that were not at peace to sign a peace treaty. That was results. Uh…where are Bush’s results? Where is there peace where there once was war under Bush’s terms? I’m trying to search, really, but I can’t seem to find any…

True, though given the option between consession (let Saddam be a dishonest weasel about WMDs, whether he has them or not) and military action, Bush chose the later, obviously. You make a brilliantly obvious point.

Ah because it is only a choice between those two options for you guys. Only appeasement or death. Sad world you guys live in.

Gaze into the crystal ball and tell us what the ending would be if Bush had done something else.

Huh, well, let’s see. If Bush put those 150,000 American soldiers destined for the failed Iraq war, if he put them in Afghanistan, boy, what could we have done? Let’s see. We could have sealed off the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We could have ensured that Al-Qaeda did not escape Tora Bora into Pakistan to regroup. We could have ensured that there was no resurgence of the Taliban. But, well, Afghanistan doesn’t have any oil…

In other words, you are wrong again on every point.

Poor, poor, fool.

Whatever dude. You have not “completely and factually ” disputed much at all, actually. Ironically it is Bush who best fits the Black Knight role. But hey, you guys usually label your political opponents exactly as would normally fit you. That’s a brilliant strategy, but of course pure fakery.

There’s not much more to say on this thread. But I’m glad you conceded defeat.

#89,

Nuh uh. You do.

djinn, you forgot to mention Joe Kennedy. If you’ve read my comments, you’d know that my desire isn’t to be hard on Chamberlain.

Israel is talking to terrorists! Those darn appeasers! They’re straying off message. They’re only going to embolden those dastardly terrorists. How dare Israel talk to Hamas!

Indeed Curtis. It makes one wonder just what kind of friend for Israel the United States has been these past eight years. The two countries can be compared to two friends, Isaac and Uncle Sam, who both go to a party. Isaac takes a few drinks and is fairly drunk. Uncle Sam not only tells Isaac to have more, but gives him the keys to the car. Isaac, though drunk, realizes that taking those keys would be detrimental and destructive and instead decides to ask Henry for a ride.

Here we go Dan. I have a day off today, so I thought I’d rip you a new one.

1. Um, what changed in 2007?…Did we decide to go after the bad guys in Pakistan?

Are you arguing for another military intervention now? You are dizzying.

Oh yeah, we put even MORE soldiers in Iraq, where the bad guys are NOT.

Except Al Qaeda and Shia militias armed by Iran. If you can show that neither of those are there, 1 point for you. Otherwise, you lose here.

By the way, you want to know why Bush suddenly shifted to putting more troops in Iraq in 2007? Because in 2006, his party got trounced at the elections.

Another straw man-the rantings of a lefty loonie.

He suddenly realized that he was actually being held accountable.

Yet you cannot support a good decision?

Too bad that the Surge failed in its main core point: political reconciliation-

I know this prediction, but your argument (posed in the past tense, oddly enough) is daily being swept aside by successes and progress of the surge in grass-roots Iraqi politics, especially.

2. See my last comment on this point.

3. Nasamomdele, truly you do not understand the Middle East. Iran’s influence in Iraq does not come from oil, or from their “suicide warriors.” Why would Iran have such an influence in Iraq?

You tell me.

4. So, if I understand you correctly, if someone is displaying their weaponry, it is to show that they want war? So every time the United States puts on a weapons test (or Pakistan, or India, or China, or Russia, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or…well everybody else), it is to show that they want war?

You don’t understand me correctly. You know what happens when you assume…

5. On deterrence. You make a huge mistake in this talk about nuclear weapons being the reason for U.S. relations with other countries. I have found numerous sources on the normalizing of US-Chinese relations and not one refers to nuclear capability. Where you and Curtis AND DKL with his children bit fail is in your creation of causations from opinion. At most you must posit your theory, but you State you are always right and that nuclear capability causes the US to take interest in normalizing relations. You are torn down by your own delusions of certainty.

You bet I am biased. I want to see the Republican party shamed for what they’ve done these past seven years.

Bias- the greatest threat to credibility. You obviously do not argue, rather you RANT.

I am sorry to say, nasamomdele, that as long as you back anything Bush does, you are not relying solely on “unbiased facts.”

If I back ANYTHING I AM BIASED? Why is that? Explain yourself.

There is nothing wrong at all with the liberal drum. In fact, it has been quite accurate over these last several years. I’m going to stick with it until it no longer is accurate. With that all said, I find Michael “Military Propagandist” Gordon’s latest piece in the New York Times fascinating. He doesn’t talk at all about Mosul. Huh…

Your article and the not all that recent archives from Gordon netted ONE city- Sadr City. And the Iraqi army doing most of the fighting. Your bias just killed you again. Don’t spin- I’ve refuted you with your own sources before.

There was no retreat, because you didn’t attack my position. You created a straw man and attacked the straw man. As the straw man was not me, why would I need to defend myself? If you come after my positions, then you bet I will respond. But if you keep putting up straw men, I have no need to respond to them. Forget the straw men, nasamomdele. They are weak opponents. Come after me directly.

Your position is that Republicans can only do wrong. I don’t have to be Republican to argue against that. Matter of fact, I’m not. I’m anti-ravings.

You mean like diplomacy with results? I believe I did provide that. Carter, who you love to denigrate, used diplomacy to get two warring nations to make peace. That was results! Clinton got two nations that were not at peace to sign a peace treaty. That was results. Uh…where are Bush’s results? Where is there peace where there once was war under Bush’s terms? I’m trying to search, really, but I can’t seem to find any…

Yeah, why not bring up diplomacy from the last 30 years to prove Dems have done well. Shoot, the enemy of the 20th century was brought to the table not by JFK, but by Ray-gun. More recent news: Pelosi and Carter- results or Democratic pandering.

Ah because it is only a choice between those two options for you guys. Only appeasement or death. Sad world you guys live in.

Show me how doing nothing or doing anything does not result in someone dying and I’ll concede. This is just a silly thing you say. The world is full of horrors no politics can solve. Appeasement leads to death, isolationism leads to death, occupation leads to death and so on…To think it can be stopped by some magical Democrat solvent is naïve, foolish, disingenuous, etc.

In general, where you continue to fail is in your tendency to run the bias and conspiracy line to its fullest- promoting causation where there can only be theory or speculation. When you can admit that you only theorize, then you will not sound like a left-wing raving nut. And though being a nut is fine for the purposes of a blog, it doesn’t say much for you or the words that come out of your mouth.

Therefore, one could refute your arguments by simply saying “I don’t like the way you think.” Thus, DKL’s attacks against you are enough to refute your conjecture and rantings.

DKL,

Dan, once again, that’s irrelevant. Meeting unconditionally with an enemy is different from meeting someone after you’ve bombed them or their allies or their neighbors into submission. The reason you don’t see these distinctions is that you’re either blinded by partisan biased or (more likely) you’re pretty dumb.

Ah because bombing Syria was so effective for Israel. And bombing Lebanon was so effective. Two years later after that bombing, Hezbollah is stronger than ever in Lebanon. Israel is not meeting Syria from a position of strength vis-a-vis Syria. Moreover, they had to start these meetings in secret (a true sign that the parties involved both feel their positions are not strong enough to run an overt diplomatic mission).

Israel knows that Syria is a key to reducing Iranian influence in Lebanon. They are smarter than people like you, DKL, and will make an effort at peace with the Syrians. Meanwhile, you will pout and stomp around like a little boy because they are making peace with people you would rather destroy off the face of the planet, you silly man.

nasamomdele,

#99,

Oh fun.

1.

Are you arguing for another military intervention now? You are dizzying.

Can you only think of military options? Can you not conceive of other, more successful options? Did I imply anywhere in my comment that going after them in Pakistan meant a military intervention? And you warn ME about assuming what others say?

2.

Except Al Qaeda and Shia militias armed by Iran. If you can show that neither of those are there, 1 point for you. Otherwise, you lose here.

Al-Qaeda is not being armed by Iran. Shia militias are indeed being armed by Iran. But they are also being armed by the United States. So what, exactly is your point here? Why are they our enemy, exactly? Were they not our allies back in 1991? Now we’re killing them? Just because they don’t want us in their country? Silly, I tell you, utterly, utterly silly.

By the way, you want to know why Bush suddenly shifted to putting more troops in Iraq in 2007? Because in 2006, his party got trounced at the elections.

Another straw man-the rantings of a lefty loonie.

How exactly is this a straw man? It is quite factual. Before November 2006, Bush kept saying “no more troops” going into Iraq. Suddenly in December 2006 we start hearing the rumblings of a “Surge.” Huh…in politics little is left to coincidence. And this was certainly not one of those little things left to coincidence. So I challenge you to show me where the straw man is located. Do you even know what a straw man is?

Yet you cannot support a good decision?

You bet I will support a good decision. Unfortunately the Surge was not a good decision. It had as its goal “political reconciliation” but then it used objects that will never actually lead to that goal. So sad, and of course, unsupportable.

I know this prediction, but your argument (posed in the past tense, oddly enough) is daily being swept aside by successes and progress of the surge in grass-roots Iraqi politics, especially.

Really? Where? Are Sunnis being given proper rights within the government? Where’s that oil law right now? Will the Kurds give up their autonomous region and become one with the rest of the nation? How about the various Shi’ite tribes? Is not the battles in Sadr City all about one tribe pitted against another? Frankly I see very little political reconciliation.

You know what I do see a lot of? Walls.

3. Nasamomdele, truly you do not understand the Middle East. Iran’s influence in Iraq does not come from oil, or from their “suicide warriors.” Why would Iran have such an influence in Iraq?

You tell me.

Actually, no, you tell me.

You don’t understand me correctly. You know what happens when you assume…

I do indeed. I sure hope you take your own advice.

5. On deterrence. You make a huge mistake in this talk about nuclear weapons being the reason for U.S. relations with other countries. I have found numerous sources on the normalizing of US-Chinese relations and not one refers to nuclear capability.

Show me those sources please.

If I back ANYTHING I AM BIASED? Why is that? Explain yourself.

No, but if you back anything Bush says or does then, yes, you are indeed biased. The man is a liar and a propagator. Very little of what he says or does is based on the truth or on facts.

Your article and the not all that recent archives from Gordon netted ONE city- Sadr City. And the Iraqi army doing most of the fighting. Your bias just killed you again. Don’t spin- I’ve refuted you with your own sources before.

Sorry to say nasamomdele, but my point does stand. You said that we’re left to only one province. But alas, not only have we been helping Maliki’s men in Sadr City, but we’re the ones who open the “wall”, who give intelligence, and who had also made incursions into Sadr City. That makes it two provinces. Not only that, but down in Basra, it was our military that came to Maliki’s men’s rescue. That makes three provinces. Let’s not forget the ongoing exercises in the Anbar province. That would be four (unless Mosul is at the top edge of the Anbar province, I forget). In either case, that’s more than what you state. My point stands.

Your position is that Republicans can only do wrong. I don’t have to be Republican to argue against that. Matter of fact, I’m not. I’m anti-ravings.

Hey, it’s not my fault that Republicans have tied themselves to such a liar and propagandist. That’s their fault. As long as they continue latching on to Mr. 28%, then they will continue doing only wrong.

Yeah, why not bring up diplomacy from the last 30 years to prove Dems have done well. Shoot, the enemy of the 20th century was brought to the table not by JFK, but by Ray-gun. More recent news: Pelosi and Carter- results or Democratic pandering.

Uh, maybe you don’t read very well, nasamomdele, but the second example I gave was of Clinton getting Israel and Jordan to sign a peace treaty. that would be within the last 30 years. Please read better.

Show me how doing nothing or doing anything does not result in someone dying and I’ll concede.

Who says to do nothing? Please, show me an example of someone on the left saying that we should do nothing, and then I’ll concede. And it has to be someone with at least some influence, not some lowly blogger getting only 10 hits a day.

In general, where you continue to fail is in your tendency to run the bias and conspiracy line to its fullest- promoting causation where there can only be theory or speculation. When you can admit that you only theorize, then you will not sound like a left-wing raving nut. And though being a nut is fine for the purposes of a blog, it doesn’t say much for you or the words that come out of your mouth.

Nasamomdele, I honestly could care less what you think of me. I have not been wrong on Iraq. I stand by my belief that it was the worst decision that could have been made in 2002. Awful, awful, awful. I’m glad that most Americans see it this way now. And I look forward to the day when we have a president in office who will actually listen to Americans and end this destructive and pointless war. Maybe then I will retire from blogging and go back to composing music and writing stories. But as long as the threat from idiots like Bill Kristol continues to be strong (i.e. still influential), I will speak out vociferously and strongly against the likes of him. I am not a nut, but I feel very very very strongly about the wrongness of this war. I am not articulate enough to describe my feelings well, and I can only speak as well as I can. So there it is.

Therefore, one could refute your arguments by simply saying “I don’t like the way you think.” Thus, DKL’s attacks against you are enough to refute your conjecture and rantings.

Actually they are not.

That’s an interesting statement, Margaret. I’m glad that someone has finally engaged that paragraph. Nevertheless, it probably does not surprise you that I disagree. I take your every-man-is-my-brother outlook to be referring, in some sense, to Christ’s morality.

Christ’s morality is defective because it eschews familial duty and socially-originating moral obligations. For example, when an educator becomes a university president, she takes on special obligations to her students that she does not have to students of other universities. And a parent has an obligation to a child that nobody else has to that child, a sibling to another sibling, etc. Jesus’s teachings fail to encompass these circles of obligations.

Nor are Jesus’s teachings useful in governing public policy. Christ would rather have us die than fight our neighbor, because he believed that God would make everything even in the end. A nation cannot take such a stance without potentially effecting an astonishing amount of misery.

Jesus’s teachings are useful for occasionally guiding people when they are engaging in some types of destructive behaviors, but they aren’t otherwise useful as a set of principles governing personal morality, and it remains to be seen how his behavior or teachings are useful in effecting good social ends (and the history of those who have used his teachings bears this out).

Lastly, saying that we mustn’t call people our enemy denies the possibility of genuine evil in the opposition. It’s Unchristian to refrain from labeling evil as an enemy, whether it’s American or foreign in origin.

Just how “evil” were those Nazis? Wasn’t it just after we defeated them that we turned to them and employed them against the Soviets who were previously our “allies” but now our enemies?

Just how “evil” were those Iranian mullahs? Apparently not evil enough so that Reagan could illegally sell weapons to them so he could fund his illegal actions in central America. “Evil” is a relative term in politics. We apply it to whomever we please, regardless of its actual reality. The originators of Al-Qaeda were our “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan before they created Al-Qaeda. Now they are our “enemy.”

I think that if either position had any good, verifiable data, any strong argument, or any blunt and obvious truth in support of their views, the other side still wouldn’t care. I don’t know if anyone is making the slightest dent in the other. In fact, I feel that the defenses are only getting stronger.

However, if you think this is being productive or if you think that it is fun, by all means, enjoy yourselves! Those are viable options.

Ooh, I touched a raw nerve there. I can’t compete with that kind of hate. I’m sorry that it came to this. I won’t pursue the matter further.

I like yours and Margaret’s discussion better, DKL.

The teachings of Christ during His ministry are powerful and very true, though the interesting thing about deity is that rules often don’t apply. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rules. Nephi v. Laban, Nephites v. Lamanites. The Lord supported actions resulting in death to “enemies”.

There may be a caveat. It seems the Lord gives the okay when there are serious threats to principles and freedom and not on any other basis, as far as my scriptural experience goes.

Overall, I think the Lord is at best unpredictable as an example of the New Testament teachings of Christ. We are expected to live to a different standard, of course. What is problematic is that the standard does seem to shift at the command of the Lord. It is difficult to say exactly where we stand ALL OF THE TIME. As far as I can tell, there is no uncanny heuristic for conflict in the Gospel. That is not to say I’m not open to be proven wrong. It just seems that the best answer to the validity of appeasement, turning the other cheek, or any other Christian act is “it depends.”

That being said, I think the best thing to do is to follow Christ’s words until you’re impressed not to.

nasamomdele,

I’m not a blind partisan. I expect Obama to clear us out of Iraq, or set us on the path to be out. If he doesn’t, I shall be quite critical of him. You can quote me on that. You’ll find on my blog that I’ve been highly critical of Harry Reid on FISA, or any Democrat that sided with Bush to put retroactive immunity for torture in the Military Commissions Act. How very reprehensible. I’m a fairly moderate guy politically. Just on the war in Iraq and on torture, I am very extreme, and will be until the day our actions there come to an end. Perhaps I take it too far, but there it is. My nation was taken too far.

As for Petraeus and the Surge, I admit clearly that there have been improvements, but I do believe they are temporary. Answer me this. How many walls has Petraeus built just within Baghdad to keep the various warring tribes away from each other? As for the Anbar Awakening, that had far more to do with Al-Qaeda overreaching and killing way too many civilians. The Anbar sheiks turned on them and—importantly—before the Surge, back in September 2006, decided to go to the Americans to take out AQI. Credit General Petraeus for realizing the gift given him by these sheiks, but alas, that really won’t reconcile Sunnis with the Shi’ite governing body. The overall purpose of the Surge, as stated by George Bush himself, was political reconciliation. And on that front, there has been little if any progress.

So to recap: Violence is down because 1. There are just too many walls to cross. 2. Millions have fled and are refugees in various parts of the country and in Syria. 3. Few mixed neighborhoods remain; they are now either Shi’ite neighborhoods or Sunni neighborhoods. But you will not find a mixed neighborhood anymore.

That honestly does not look like a good long-term prognosis. What happens when the walls come down? When do you remove the walls? How about the displaced Iraqis? When will they be allowed to return? What about their homes? Where will there be mixed neighborhoods? The Surge does not answer these questions because it cannot. Americans cannot provide answers to these questions, only Iraqis can. Let them do it on their own, and pull our soldiers out now. We’ve been there for six years too long.

Dan, I’m pretty sure you had no idea who you were dealing with. But after that pitiful display in 110, it’s pretty clear to everyone.

DKL,
You said, “Decades later, it’s still the Blame America First movement.”

I suppose you say that the Nephites had the same problem then. In Alma 4:3 the Nephites had just finished a huge battle with the Lamanites. Their sentiments were as follows:

3 And so great were their afflictions that every soul had cause to mourn; and they believed that it was the judgments of God sent upon them because of their wickedness and their abominations; therefore they were awakened to a remembrance of their duty.

Is this the “Blame Nephites First Movement?”

Brigham had some great wisdom on the subject of enemies. He said, “Just as soon as our eyes are turned away from watching ourselves, to see whether we do right, we begin to see faults in our neighbors; this is the great difficulty, and our minds become more and more blinded until we become entirely darkened… The main difficulty in the hearts of those who are dissatisfied is, they are not satisfied with themselves… If you want a revolution go to work to improve yourselves and give your minds something to act upon instead of looking at the faults of others… But, says one, ‘I want to fight.’ Do all such persons know that they are not right? If they will examine their hearts, they will find a wicked anger and a malice there; and they cannot get into the kingdom of God with those feelings.” In fact, Pres. Young taught that it is this warmongering attitude that gets the wicked destroyed in the end, “No man or people possessing wisdom will give vent to wrath, for that is calculated to weaken, to destroy, to blot out of existence. When the Supreme Ruler of the universe wishes to destroy a nation, he takes away their wisdom… and they are filled with wrath: they give way to their anger, and thus lay the foundation of their own destruction.”

If we are wise, we will give heed to Pogo’s famous quote which says, “I have seen the Enemy and It is I.”

nasamomdele,

Good questions, Dan. Read up on it.

I have. That’s why I’ve been against it. The answers are not good. The Surge does not provide political reconciliation because it uses tools that will not give Iraqis political reconciliation. Therefore anything that comes of the Surge will not lead to political reconciliation and the whole time spent is yet again wasted and in vain.

Dan & Curtis,

It seems you are too easily inclined to confuse support for our troops, security, or otherwise, with support for policy. One would have to have lived in a shell to remain oblivious to the errors this administration makes in it’s reasons for beginning the wars, the carrying out of occupations afterwards, and the myriad of foreign policy failings. Holding these particular opinions neither makes one a hack, or even anti-war.

However, the inability to consider opinions contrary to one’s predispositions is what got us into our mess in the first place and continues to undermine our credibility. That IS what makes a hack.

DKL:
you should face it, ‘brother’; you dis not only the views u don’t agree with, but also the source.
IF you’re the one ‘at the wheel’ control of this board, I think you’re also using that CONTROL to tweak things to your opinions/perspectives…
opinions are like ___ holes, everyone has one. That’s why we shouldn’t be torqued about diversity of opinions, rahter glad for Diversity of thought.

truth is, we don’t know/can’t tell about edited - erased posts, can we?

DKL doesn’t edit or delete any comments on here Guy. As to the rest, all his use of name calling is simply a defensive measure, a means of lashing out to try to silence those who dare not only contradict what he says, but who dare actually confront him head on. And it is hateful, and of course untrue.

Nasamomdele,

You said, “And I would take you one step further with your Brigham Young quote- why are you talking about the US or anyone else but yourself? You’ve got your own agenda, of course, and your comments fall apart because of your double standard, not to mention their lack of support.”

You would like me to talk about the influence I have on international politics? Did I come off as trying to look like the perfect guy criticizing everyone else? Well, I’m not perfect. However, I do criticize US foreign policy where I see if heavily flawed and even influenced by secret combinations. We are commanded in the Doctrine and Covenants to bring works of darkness to light and that is my only motivation.

As for your reference to my agenda and something about a double standard, I have no idea what you are talking about.

DKL,

You are indeed a hateful man, and you are wrong in your assessment. You state I am a “complete idiot.” But really, is that true? “Complete?” Could there be at least some semblance of intelligence in my being? Of course there is. You are not an honest man, but rely on hateful exaggerations to try and dispel someone from knocking your positions down. It is a clever art. It distracts from the real points to be made in a debate. It is a childish strategy and not one worth really responding to in kind, which is why I said I wouldn’t pursue it further. You are a hateful man, DKL.

I’ll help this thread keep on going:

Dan, I love George W. Bush. He is my main man!

Curtis, Hugo Chavez is a bad, bad guy! Boo, hiss!

OK, now that I’ve thrown some fuel on the fire, I will go back to worrying about gay marriage.

…you may soon in Florida. I’m sure that’s gonna be the next state for the gay takeover of America. Resistance is futile dude.

You apparently don’t get enough, DKL. You apparently need to hear it more. You are a hateful man. And because you answer no to the question of whether or not there is some semblance of intelligence in my being you prove how hateful you really are. What a sad man you are.

Um, that wasn’t meant as a compliment. That was meant as in that I would not recommend anyone follow your kind of life in order to live Christ-like and a happy life. But as you wish to have the last word here, have at it. But I won the actual debate long ago, when you resorted to calling me names.

notice that DKL takes on the function of referee here, Everyone? he gets to decide when others have a (valid) point, when they don’t.
this score keeping might make the rest of us dizzy…
(and, that Might Not be so bad

DKL,

#124, who’s curtis? I actually wrote that.

See, you brush off people as nothing to the point of not even reading a comment properly. Or are you from a ‘non-english speaking background’? Martian one? It’d make some sense.

And on Krauthammer? the fox news neo-conservative commentator? yea sure…meanwhile the US $ keeps falling, foreclosures continue and the republicans want to bomb Iran…and NKorea and Venezuela….and then who? the French? how about Belgium, hey maybe even Canada!! that will fix those hockey cheats…right??

you’d think the wingnuts @ huffpost would realize that they will get what they want once Ol’ Leftie is elected. the insufferable but usually right-on Dick Morris explains as much here: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/07/09/obama-would-in-fact-govern-from-the-left/

yet they insist on continuing the jilted-lover schtick night after night, surrogate after surrogate. it blows my mind that they can’t see the self-interest in containing their glee as just enough GOPers start to think “hey, maybe he’s a moderate after all and won’t double the capital gains tax!” or maybe the faux horror is part of the plan, just like the oh-so-coincidental blasting of McCain’s military service by four (!) surrogates on the same weekend with the immediate quasi-denunciation by BHO.

unrelated…I enjoyed a Bernard Goldberg moment last week when a CNN anchor introduced two commentators (I will call them X and Y since I’ve since forgotten their forgettable comments).

“On tonight’s panel we’re happy to welcome X from the Huffington Post and conservative commentator Y.”

Y’s affilitation was not spoken, but was flashed up on the screen later as the firebreathing Washington Times.

The irony, lost on none of you I’m sure, is that the wedon’tneedtosaywe’refairandbalanced CNN introduced the Democrat by his affiliation, not mentioning his political leaning, and the Republican by her political leaning, not her affiliation.

This was all particularly laughable as 9 of 10 monkeys would agree that the Huffington Post is quite a bit more the mouthpiece of the left than the Washington Times is of the right. To say nothing of how long each has been around…

You can’t make this stuff up (well, you can, but no need to). Bernie called as he saw it in 2001.

Ok (but only because I’m quite sick and unable to do anything but sit very very still) Every time you rain actual rockets (<a href=”Ok (but only because I’m quite sick and unable to do anything but sit very very still) Every time you rain actual rockets (in perceived retribution), and cause outside random killing on a population; (uh, 4 israelis dead as opposed to 1000+ Palestinians, some percentage children (are you anti- wrong-kind-of-kid) all in reaction to the sort of thing you’d build as a high-schooler powered by fertilizer and a nail, (and yes this is about Gaza) , retribution, random killing on a population; all you do is make them hate you more, and make the possibility of severe retribution that much more likely. Just project your current feelings into those you see as the enemy. You have flashes of non-stupidity, but then this. Please, don’t get us all killed by your childish revenge fantasies.

Sorry about the messed up comment earlier; my shorter version of the difference between insult and Ad Hominem:

Ad Hominem: You are stupid. Therefore, your argument, whatever it is, is stupid too.

Insult. Your argument is stupid for reasons A, B, C…. You are also stupid.

djinn, you’re a complete nut. Nothing that you’ve said warrants a serious response.

Nevertheless, I’ll note two things:

First, the Oklahoma City bomb was made out of fertilizer.

Second, the activities and policies of Hamas and Hezbollah have ensured that the road to genuine peace in the Middle East will be paved with the dead bodies of Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians. We must not, on account of Hamas and Hezbollah, bemoan progress toward genuine peace in the Middle East.

Hamas are thugs. The Israelis, by also behaving as thugs have shown the population of Gaza (not thugs, for the most part) that they should side with their own thugs. Everything gets worse.

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_11533312

Mormon Church gives humanitarian aid to Gaza residents.

updated 3:54 p.m. PT, Sun., Jan. 25, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama’s pledge of bipartisan cooperation with Congress will be tested as he tries to fulfill a campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay and establish a new system for prosecuting suspected terrorists.

The undertaking is an ambitious one. Fraught with legal complexities, it gives Republicans ample opportunity to score political points if he doesn’t get it right. There’s also the liklihood of a run-in with his former rival, Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war who before running for president staked his career on overhauling the nation’s detainee policies.

“We look forward to working with the president and his administration on these issues, keeping in mind that the first priority of the U.S. government is to guarantee the security of the American people,” McCain, R-Ariz., said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Story continues below ↓
——————————————————————————–
advertisement | your ad here

——————————————————————————–

The statement seemed aimed at putting Obama on notice that he must deal with Congress on the matter.

In his first week in office, Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to be closed within a year, CIA secret prisons shuttered and abusive interrogations ended.

So far, Obama’s team has given every indication it will engage lawmakers, including Republicans, on the issue. Graham and McCain were among several Republicans briefed last week by White House counsel Greg Craig and handed drafts of the executive orders.

Ample room for dispute
But once the two sides begin delving into details, there will be ample room for dispute.

Among the unknowns is how many of the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo Bay will be prosecuted.

Administration officials said that, pending an internal review, federal and military courts may be used. But, the officials added, a version of the secretive military tribunals, as established under President George W. Bush with the help of McCain, remains an option, too.

Officials say the tribunals may be needed to prosecute suspected terrorists who are too dangerous to release but whose cases would otherwise fail, either because evidence was coerced or trying them in a less secretive court would expose classified information.

Obama could take a page from the Bush administration and try to revamp the system on his own, through executive order. But that approach failed for Bush, who angered members of his own party and wound up seeking congressional approval anyway after the Supreme Court in June 2006 ruled his tribunal system was unconstitutional.

Obama’s other option is to seek legislation on the issue, potentially exposing his administration to a bruising fight with Republicans on how to handle the most dangerous of terrorism suspects.

A narrow majority of Americans supports shutting down Guantanamo Bay on a priority basis. But people are likely to become much less sympathetic to detainee rights if there is another terrorism attack inside the United States or if the new system is portrayed as too lenient on suspected al-Qaida members.

Soft on terrorism?
Republicans already are trying to portray Obama’s review of detainee rights as soft on terrorism. House Republicans on Friday mobilized a “rapid response team” of lawmakers to speak out against the president’s plans.

“The Guantanamo Bay prison is filled with the worst of the worst — terrorists and killers bent on murdering Americans and other friends of freedom around the world,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. “If it is closed, where will they go, will they be brought to the United States and how will they be secured?”

Democrats have suggested they expect to be important players in the debate.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who heads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the panel planned to hold back on legislation “for a time” to allow the administration to complete its own assessment. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would like “to at least have an advisory role” on the final plan.

Click for related content
Newsweek: New report could complicate Gitmo closure

In 2006, the question of detainee trials and interrogations enveloped Congress and exposed Republican infighting. McCain, Graham and now retired Sen. John Warner, R-Va., sharply challenged Bush’s handling of detainees. In the end, the two sides emerged with complex legislation that outlined the inner workings of military tribunals and defined what constitutes a war crime, effectively banning specific interrogation techniques seen as too harsh.

‘We are at war’
Human rights groups and Democrats said the system still gave too much power to the president. But now, Republicans are worried Obama will swing too far in the other direction.

Graham, a colonel in the Air Force Reserves assigned to the service’s Judge Advocate General School, said he is concerned that Obama will wind up giving civilian courts too heavy a hand in dealing with terrorists handled by the military and CIA.

“Federal judges in my opinion should not be making battlefield decisions. … I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that we are at war,” he said

djinn,

Hezbollah paid a high price politically in the 2006 Israeli invasion, something Israel did not expect as being a product of said invasion. Emigration of people not affiliated with Hezbollah has increased dramatically in the following years. Hezbollah’s legitimate influence has been diminished considerably.

Israel’s goals for this most recent war were more along those lines. So it remains to be seen whether “Hamas gets stronger” as anti-war Libs love to say happens in a war. “Evil just gets stronger”, right? I suggest patience and a studious approach to things instead of simply flapping off like theradicalmormon here.

The anti-Israel ranting is laughable in the first place. The track record of conflict leans morally toward Israel. That’s simply facts, not apologetics. This particular conflict is a response to continuous rocket attacks since 2006 from Gaza despite cease-fire agreements. This is not new. This is a pattern of bad behavior by a militant Palestinian faction.

Other militant factions have seen the error of their ways, hopefully Hamas will also see the light.