updated less than 1 minute ago

 

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing terrorists and radicals.

 

In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

 

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24647048/

I agree with Bush 100%. You'd have to be foolish to think you can reason with those people.

^I agree with President Bush and you 100%. Chamberlain sat down at the negotiating table with Hiter with no preconditions. That is exactly what Obama proposed doing during the debates.

I agree with Bush---I see nothing wrong in what he said.

The fact that Obama won't allow a compariosn between terrorists and the Nazis is very telling about him.

The American idea of "too good to talk to you" is growing tiresome. Would the other nations gain a greater bit of respect toward the United States if we would simply speak with them, instead of constant threat rhetoric and bombing?

 

I'm not saying it would work and of course Chamberlain was unsuccessful with Hitler. But I'm not sure the "bomb them into submission" plan has been very effective either.

The American idea of "too good to talk to you" is growing tiresome. Would the other nations gain a greater bit of respect toward the United States if we would simply speak with them, instead of constant threat rhetoric and bombing?

 

I'm not saying it would work and of course Chamberlain was unsuccessful with Hitler. But I'm not sure the "bomb them into submission" plan has been very effective either.

 

I could care less if terrorists or radicals of all people respect the US. They don't deserve to be on this planet as far as I'm concerned.

I could care less if terrorists or radicals of all people respect the US. They don't deserve to be on this planet as far as I'm concerned.

 

But isn't that the attitude that leads to destruction? Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. basically used the entire world and they had to like it, simply because we could provide all they needed. But now we don't provide everything. Other nations are developing. What edge do we hold over them? Why should they fear our loud-talking and saber-rattling?

 

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I would think equal respect given might lead to equal respect received.

The American idea of "too good to talk to you" is growing tiresome. Would the other nations gain a greater bit of respect toward the United States if we would simply speak with them, instead of constant threat rhetoric and bombing?

 

I'm not saying it would work and of course Chamberlain was unsuccessful with Hitler. But I'm not sure the "bomb them into submission" plan has been very effective either.

Have you ever engaged in any kind of negotiation or had any training as a negotiator? If so, then you should recognize that Chamberlain's mistake, which Obama pledges to repeat, is that he negotiated in good faith from a position of weakness with an adversary who had no intention of abiding by any treaty in longer than necessary.

 

If the other side is not interested in peace or compromise, then no amount of goodwill or gift of gab on your side of the table is going to lead to any meaningful concessions. Hezbollah has predicted that it will come to dominate Lebanon and that within the next two or three years, Jordan and Egypt will fall to Hezbollah's allies. What do they have to gain by making concessions in the absence of pressure from the US and Israel - when they believe that their current strategy is succeeding?

But isn't that the attitude that leads to destruction? Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. basically used the entire world and they had to like it, simply because we could provide all they needed. But now we don't provide everything. Other nations are developing. What edge do we hold over them? Why should they fear our loud-talking and saber-rattling?

 

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I would think equal respect given might lead to equal respect received.

Destruction of terrorism and those who practice it is a good thing.

Have you ever engaged in any kind of negotiation or had any training as a negotiator? If so, then you should recognize that Chamberlain's mistake, which Obama pledges to repeat, is that he negotiated in good faith from a position of weakness with an adversary who had no intention of abiding by any treaty in longer than necessary.

 

If the other side is not interested in peace or compromise, then no amount of goodwill or gift of gab on your side of the table is going to lead to any meaningful concessions. Hezbollah has predicted that it will come to dominate Lebanon and that within the next two or three years, Jordan and Egypt will fall to Hezbollah's allies. What do they have to gain by making concessions in the absence of pressure from the US and Israel - when they believe that their current strategy is succeeding?

 

I'm not a negotiator and have no experience in such. In no way do I claim expert status on all political issues, something rare on this website. I'm speaking from the mind of a middle-of-the-road American, one who is tired of the old method and interested in trying something new. Will it work? I don't know. But every suggestion from Democrats or Republicans is lambasted on this website (along with the suggestor), and then everyone becomes defensive, and so it goes.

 

My post wasn't meant as a negotiation or compromise, just a meeting between sides. If the U.S. insists on calling those nations/groups the bad guy, nothing will ever improve. My only thought is that discussion MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

Cease fire is defined in the Hezbollah dictionary as "time to reload".

I'm not a negotiator and have no experience in such. In no way do I claim expert status on all political issues, something rare on this website. I'm speaking from the mind of a middle-of-the-road American, one who is tired of the old method and interested in trying something new. Will it work? I don't know. But every suggestion from Democrats or Republicans is lambasted on this website (along with the suggestor), and then everyone becomes defensive, and so it goes.

 

My post wasn't meant as a negotiation or compromise, just a meeting between sides. If the U.S. insists on calling those nations/groups the bad guy, nothing will ever improve. My only thought is that discussion MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

The "new" method that you speak of was tried for the better part of the 90's and we ended up with 911. I think that way has proven to fail with terrorists.

The "new" method that you speak of was tried for the better part of the 90's and we ended up with 911. I think that way has proven to fail with terrorists.

 

That's a simplistic answer.

 

Did the old way help Ronnie in the 80's? We had the Marine Barracks in Lebanon destroyed and we left soon after.

 

Numerous hostages were taken in the same place over years.

 

So we made deals to give Iran weapons for cash and influence to get those hostages freed. Whose to blame for setting that precedent?

 

Pam Am bombing? The list is nearly as long as it is now. We attacked Libya but it's not like the terrorists gave up on planes after our bombing did they?

 

Foreign Policy is always seemingly inconsistent to me. We seek to stamp out the terrorists in the middle east and do all sorts of business with a Chinese government that slaughters hundreds of dissidents from Tianamen Square to Tibet.

Cease fire is defined in the Hezbollah dictionary as "time to reload".

 

:laugh::lol:Good one!

 

I like the avatar, you should be really proud. :thumb: