# Bush, appeasement, Carter or Obama, et al



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Who do you think the President was really talking about?

You can pick more than one for this one.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I went with all three to get us started. I think Carter is a convenient source of cover (or is he concealment LOL), but the statement applies to all of them! I think it's also 'inbounds', but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

It's hard to tell from the language that appeared in the NY Times today. Looked like a generic condemnation of cowardly appeasement, in dealing with aggression.

Could have referred to almost any era in the history of the world where appeasement was on display: Neville Chamberlin in 1939 in Munich, the Vichy French, Regan in 1983 when we fled Lebanon after the Marine barracks was destroyed, Samolia, when we cut and ran after the Rangers were abandonded, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, attack on the USS Coles, et al.

In one of Bin Laden's tapes, he said that he knew that US could be attacked with impunity, after we cut and ran in Samolia. It could be argued, based on his statement, that 9/11 was a result of our policy of cowardly appeasement. 

It's too bad that W lacks the credibility to adequately warn the American people that the easy way is always the hard way.

It's doubtful that his message had any impact on the national consciousness.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Indeed. Wise words, Intrepid.

FWIW https://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_white_house_changes_target.php


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Indeed. Wise words, Intrepid.
> 
> FWIW https://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_white_house_changes_target.php


Gillespie's statement is an unusually transparent lie, even for the Bush administration.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Gillespie's statement is an unusually transparent lie, even for the Bush administration.


Perhaps. The statement was sufficiently vague IMHO that one can't say with certainty to whom he was referring (likely by design).


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

It's a shame that Gillespie's statement is worse than useless.

By focusing on an individual, it negated the overall logic of the philosophy, and threw it back into the arena of partisan polemics, that most Americans tend to dismiss completely.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

It was an ambiguous statement (Bush's), and look who ran for cover.

Truthfully, Jimmy Carter is certainly at the top of the list of suspects.

Obama obviously knows it hit him where it hurts. Hi righteously angry statements are just political maneuvering.

All of the above wear the title well.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Take a map of the old east and west divisions of the Roman Empire and lay over a modern map. Take a map of the Ottoman Empire and the various crusades from the west. Take Serbia, where Slick Willie solemnly explained ( after an aid probably speed read Barbara Tuchman's GUNS OF AUGUST) was where WW1 started. Take the historic and cultural heart of that nation where migrants of moslems from the Orwellian joke called Albania proper took place. Have a few Serbian military leaders get caught practicing the same ethnic cleansing-Genocide both peoples have done to each other since the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottoman. Bomb ( nice and clean warfare) the Serbs over Easter while extending various truces during Rammadan to any islamic foes. And then hand that integral piece of Serbia over to moslem albanian immigrants like Czechoslovakia to Adolf to show America is even handed.Tell Russia NATO, a creation to counter a now non existent Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations of the Warsaw Pack will continue to expand into the traditional Eastern world. Appeasment?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Kav said:


> Take a map of the old east and west divisions of the Roman Empire and lay over a modern map. Take a map of the Ottoman Empire and the various crusades from the west. Take Serbia, where Slick Willie solemnly explained ( after an aid probably speed read Barbara Tuchman's GUNS OF AUGUST) was where WW1 started. Take the historic and cultural heart of that nation where migrants of moslems from the Orwellian joke called Albania proper took place. Have a few Serbian military leaders get caught practicing the same ethnic cleansing-Genocide both peoples have done to each other since the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottoman. Bomb ( nice and clean warfare) the Serbs over Easter while extending various truces during Rammadan to any islamic foes. And then hand that integral piece of Serbia over to moslem albanian immigrants like Czechoslovakia to Adolf to show America is even handed.Tell Russia NATO, a creation to counter a now non existent Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations of the Warsaw Pack will continue to expand into the traditional Eastern world. Appeasment?


Thanks for clearing that up.

Another perspective on the Bush/appeasement flap:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp

I give a few extra points to this analysis given that Brooks is not notably friendly to liberals.

Which counters the ones taken away when he completely botched the call on Reagan's pandering to "state's rights" partisans in Philadelphia, MS.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The Brooks article is fine but the fundamental problem with Obama's foreign policy is we really don't know what it is, nor has he done anything in the way of trying to explain it. The Dems, Obama included, have been so busy bashing Bush they have done nothing to articulate their own foreign policy agenda. 

Obama is trying to walk a fine line, one that will become finer once he receives the nomination and needs to start playing to the center. He has put forth some really silly comments such as meeting unconditionally with Iran, North Korea and Cuba and has then turned around and said he would send in troops to Pakistan to get OBL. I get the feeling however that deep down he is very much like Jimmy Carter. He may talk tough from time to time, but I don't think he has the stomach to drop the hammer if and when the need arose. You have to hand it to GW, he's tough and sticks to his principles. Even when polls are down and his legacy is threatened he won't back down. I'm not sure that Obama has the fortitude for that.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Kav said:


> Take a map of the old east and west divisions of the Roman Empire and lay over a modern map. Take a map of the Ottoman Empire and the various crusades from the west. Take Serbia, where Slick Willie solemnly explained ( after an aid probably speed read Barbara Tuchman's GUNS OF AUGUST) was where WW1 started. Take the historic and cultural heart of that nation where migrants of moslems from the Orwellian joke called Albania proper took place. Have a few Serbian military leaders get caught practicing the same ethnic cleansing-Genocide both peoples have done to each other since the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottoman. Bomb ( nice and clean warfare) the Serbs over Easter while extending various truces during Rammadan to any islamic foes. And then hand that integral piece of Serbia over to moslem albanian immigrants like Czechoslovakia to Adolf to show America is even handed.Tell Russia NATO, a creation to counter a now non existent Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations of the Warsaw Pack will continue to expand into the traditional Eastern world. Appeasment?


There was nothing decipherable amidst that drivel but the concept that Muslim societies are inherently enemies of Western societies, which, as a Western Muslim, I would say is false.

While there have been many conflicts, these were not quite a 'clash of civilisations' - they were political opportunism under the guise of faith in order to mislead the public. Muslim emperors frequented that crooked path when the intelligentsia were rising in influence. As the general record goes, relations between the "moslems" and the West were quite good until the rise of anti-intellectualism in Muslim societies. Al-Andalus is a clear example.

There is not an evil "moslem" other that is out to get the west. There are a lot of corrupt people that do what they do - that is not a clash of civilizations; it is just crooked politics and militancy.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

That 'drivel' is merely my retelling what I hear from many eastern europeans, particularly Balkan nationals.6'6 cripple yemeni thugs aren't the only people with viewpoints not in common with the BBC. You are free to ignore this 'drivel.' Just don't drive around Sarajevo in a convertable.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

When I heard Bush's speech, I immediately thought he meant Carter. Then the Liberal Brain Trust threw Obama into the line of fire and he took the bait. LOL!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

What a brilliant turn of the tongue. The President got them all with a single shot from his mouth. Now if he were only that effective in dealing with the international community! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I tend to think Bush was referring to anyone who thinks it wise to "negotiate" with a terrorist group or government of a State that actively supports terrorism; although I'm sure it wouldn't bother him if anything he said stuck to Obama. 

But having said that, I don't know if I agree with him that any talking with those guys is "appeasement". To me you can talk if only to tell the other guy in a direct and matter of fact way exactly what you expect. It isn't necessary to mince words. This isn't appeasement. Appeasement is Chamberlain telling Hitler he can have the Sudetenland in return for leaving everyone else alone. We saw how that turned out.

I'm a conservative who supports McCain, but in all honesty I don't think Obama is saying we should turn a blind eye to Iran or Hamas while they take neighboring land. I think Obama just thinks he can say nice things to our foes and they will respond in a rational manner. McCain does not share that illusion.

Cruiser


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

An interesting article appeared in the NY Times,last week, that I am not qualified to evaluate, and it is remotely related to this thread.

In the Muslim world, if the father is a Muslim, any child born of the union is a Muslim, regardless of the faith of the mother.

Obama's father was a Muslim.

Obama has never been of the Muslim faith. Therefore he is an apostate, in the eyes of many in the Muslim world, such as the most militant, which would be the Wahabis that are dominant in places like Saudi Arabia. (Bin Laden became such a threat that the Saudis kicked him out and revoked his passport, even though his father was a hugely wealthy supporter of the regime.)

(If you are interested, you might want to check out "Looming Towers". It will put you ahead of all in Congress, and a lot in the State Department in understanding the Muslim world, but I digress.)

The unwavering mission of militant Muslims is to kill all apostates. The bloody battles between the Shia, and the Sunis have been over who the rightful heirs to Mohamad are. They take this stuff a lot more seriously than do,say, the Baptists and the Methodists, in expressing their theological differences.

Would a visit by a President Obama be greeted by the Muslim world as a positive, or would he be viewed as just another apostate, that needs to die as soon as they can get around to it?

Beats the hell out of me, but I'm sure that someone here has a valid view.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Actually, no. That author was running his words off without knowing what he was talking about, as the numerous mideast studies professors who mailed in response said. First off, the word apostate refers to one who has left a faith - Islam does not pass on through parental descent. After the birth of the child, the child is made Muslim, as it were. Obama's father was an atheist as was his mother. There is nothing "apostate" about a born atheist turned Christian.

As far as the Muslim world, Senator Obama is seen with much admiration - not as an apostate. Even under extremist views, he cannot be considered an apostate.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Interesting point about the Muslim world having so much admiration for Obama. I'm very curious about this.

Is this admiration by the heads of state, or the 'man in the street'? 

Does the Muslim admiration include the 'man in the street' of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia?

What is the reason for it? 

We know so little about Obama in the USA, I can only imagine that most Muslims know even less.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, it's safe to say that they don't like Obama for his domestic policies...


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Actually, no. That author was running his words off without knowing what he was talking about, as the numerous mideast studies professors who mailed in response said. First off, the word apostate refers to one who has left a faith - Islam does not pass on through parental descent. After the birth of the child, the child is made Muslim, as it were. Obama's father was an atheist as was his mother. There is nothing "apostate" about a born atheist turned Christian.
> 
> As far as the Muslim world, Senator Obama is seen with much admiration - not as an apostate. Even under extremist views, he cannot be considered an apostate.


Thanks, I was hoping that you would post, as you are much better informed, than I am.

In the two courses that I audited on Middle Eastern Studies, both texts referred to the non Muslim world as being apostate. It was used to cover Christians, Jews, atheists, etc.

This is obviously erroneous, if apostate refers only to those that were Muslims at one time, and left the faith. Many thanks.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Actually, no. That author was running his words off without knowing what he was talking about, as the numerous mideast studies professors who mailed in response said. First off, the word apostate refers to one who has left a faith - Islam does not pass on through parental descent. After the birth of the child, the child is made Muslim, as it were. Obama's father was an atheist as was his mother. There is nothing "apostate" about a born atheist turned Christian.
> 
> As far as the Muslim world, Senator Obama is seen with much admiration - not as an apostate. Even under extremist views, he cannot be considered an apostate.


I'm now a bit confused about another matter that you can clear up for me.

It is the accepted thesis of the Middle Eastern Studies Dept at Princeton that the Sunis and the Shia consider the other branch of the Muslim faith to be apostates.

After the death of Muhammad, it is my understanding that a bloody ongoing struggle exists between the Sunis and the Shia, because one believes that the heritable faith comes directly from the descendants of Muhammad. The others believes that the true faith comes only from those that were appointed as leaders after the death of Muhammad.

Ergo, Sunis consider the Shia to be apostates, and Sunis consider the Shia to also be apostates.

Is that approximately the case? Thanks again.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

*Typical Bush Double Talk*

All this from a guy whose father tried to belittle Clinton for "protesting his country abroad."


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Man-in-the-street admiration. It is, to be honest, at least partially because of race - most of the world's population are people of colour. It's a he's-sort-of-like-us thing. People seem to see him as someone who would recognize the US as part of a wider world as opposed to a distinct entity, this concept drawn from both ethnicity and operating style.

I've noticed the above in Muslim South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East (the last one is surprising due to the prolific racism towards blacks by many Arabs). I don't know about Africa, but I hear that he is very popular there. European Muslims also have taken a liking to him.

American Muslims are sort of split, with the socially conservative going Republican and the more liberal going Democrat.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

What is most obvious from these postings is that virtually none of you, most specifically this twit of a president, have a clue what the word _appeasement_ means.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Regarding Sunni-Shi'a relations, it is very much like the Catholic-Protestant difference. The Shi'a are like Catholics in that there is a hierarchy of sorts of religious leaders, whereas the Sunni are like protestants in believing in a direct connection between believers and God (ergo a lack of hierarchy).

The initial division was a political one, with the predecessors of the Shi'a protesting the election that took place after the Prophet's death, arguing that rule should be decided by lineage as opposed to a vote. 

While there has been much violence on both sides, many scholars today, as well as in early generations have worked together. In fact, the founder of the prominent Shi'a school of thought, Ja'far as-Sadiq was a friend and student of the founders of the Sunni schools of thought.

It is true that Wahhabi reject the Shi'a, but they don't accept the faith of Sunni who follow a pre-existing school of thought either. They can be likened to devout Puritans.

The violence stems from a historic precedent of the warring Abbasid (Sunni) and Fattamid (Shi'a) dynasties.

A simple generalization that can be made to understand these relations is
Shi'a - Catholic
Sunni - Protestant
Wahhabi - Puritan


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

rip said:


> What is most obvious from these postings is that virtually none of you, most specifically this twit of a president, have a clue what the word _appeasement_ means.


That's an odd comment. Why not follow it up with an explanation...?


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> That's an odd comment. Why not follow it up with an explanation...?


I think he was making the point that talking to an enemy isn't appeasement. Appeasement is giving something (aside from the pleasure of a discussion) to a hostile party in the hopes that will satisfy them and prohibit bad behavior in the future.

T


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Okay, so the guy was just ignorant, as the enemy is after recognition and legitimacy, too.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

maxnharry said:


> I think he was making the point that talking to an enemy isn't appeasement. Appeasement is giving something (aside from the pleasure of a discussion) to a hostile party in the hopes that will satisfy them and prohibit bad behavior in the future.
> T


That can't be it because that is exactly what I said in my post and he specifically said that "none" of the people that had posted know what it is. It must be something else.

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> What is most obvious from these postings is that virtually none of you, most specifically this twit of a president, have a clue what the word _appeasement_ means.





PedanticTurkey said:


> That's an odd comment. Why not follow it up with an explanation...?





maxnharry said:


> I think he was making the point that talking to an enemy isn't appeasement. Appeasement is giving something (aside from the pleasure of a discussion) to a hostile party in the hopes that will satisfy them and prohibit bad behavior in the future.
> 
> T


Yes, that is what appeasement means; and speaking to them without the pre-condition of them complying with the UN sanctions against them is very clearly giving them something and constitutes appeasement.

What's is most obvious is that some people have no concept of current events and that 'the pleasure of a discussion' with the POTUS is not a small thing.

Receiving a phone call from the POTUS is a tremendous honor and raises one's standing immensely. What if the POTUS called you at work, how long would it take for that to get around and how would that affect how people thought about you? Do you think your chances for a promotion and a raise might go up a little? 

Almost no one gets a FtF with the POTUS. For a criminal? You're kidding I hope, RIP?

Getting five minutes with Jeb is next to impossible and he's no longer in office.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Regarding Sunni-Shi'a relations, it is very much like the Catholic-Protestant difference. The Shi'a are like Catholics in that there is a hierarchy of sorts of religious leaders, whereas the Sunni are like protestants in believing in a direct connection between believers and God (ergo a lack of hierarchy).
> 
> The initial division was a political one, with the predecessors of the Shi'a protesting the election that took place after the Prophet's death, arguing that rule should be decided by lineage as opposed to a vote.
> 
> ...


Your metaphor is most helpful, thank you. Would it also be accurate to state, metaphorically, that the Puritans, think that the Catholics should die because of their religious beliefs, likewise Catholics vis a vis the Protestants etc. ?

That all three think that Baptists, Jews, Atheists etc should die? Or is this just an overreaction of the western world to World Trade Center, USS Coles, Embassy bombings, etc?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I was not making such a claim; the metaphor was simply to highlight a few ideological principles. The bombings that you mention were heinous crimes without a doubt and the faith of those who carry these out is invalid. A problem prevalent in the Muslim world is corrupt and ineffective government; these governments often claim the guise of religion to do their wicked work. Similarly, people like Al Qaida use religion to do things that are not within faith's fold.

The key to combating terrorism is the rectification of the problems that terrorist groups claim that they will change. The situation as a whole is similar to the Cold War; if these states were to have working economies, there would be no appeal to these lying politicians and terrorists. A Marshall Plan of sorts, I believe, would be the solution; it would pull the rug from under those that espouse false faith to fill their pockets.

Bangladesh is a good example of a Muslim country that has been, for the most part, free of much popular support for terrorism due to its fast-growing private sector and economy - whereas Pakistan has much the opposite situation.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Bangladesh? Seriously?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The President was speaking to the Israelis in a language the Israelis unfortunately understand all too well. While we may quibble about words like appeasement and what it means, the poor Israelis are having to deal with hostiles with whom they have tried negotiations and appeasement, all of which has not worked. 

I think it is curious how many people use the term "negotiate" or "talk" without knowing what it means (an allusion to the earlier appeasement post). Those against Bush's foreign policy are calling for talks, direct talks, negotiations, blah, blah, blah!! What is the common ground or common interest that would form the pivot point about which these talks could be held?


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Yes, that is what appeasement means; and speaking to them without the pre-condition of them complying with the UN sanctions against them is very clearly giving them something and constitutes appeasement.
> 
> What's is most obvious is that some people have no concept of current events and that 'the pleasure of a discussion' with the POTUS is not a small thing.
> 
> ...


I know that this position is in favor right now to try to explain the disastrous foreign policy of this administration, but rational and thoughtful Republicans and Democrats have met with enemies and had discussions.

Noted appeaser Ronald Reagan met face to face with the Soviets, who were much deeper enemies of ours and an actual security threat to this nation. Another noted appeaser James Baker has actually talked to the Syrians on behalf of this President and is in favor of doing the same with the Iranians.

No matter who our next president is, I pray he acts like a grown up and conducts actual diplomacy and not this pseudo-isolation crap that we're doing right now.

BTW, it's still not appeasement unless you actually make a concession in exchange for something.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Bangladesh? Seriously?


They've got a lot of problems, but the private sector there has really been improving things. I worked for Grameen Bank for a few months in Bangladesh and saw those effects firsthand.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

maxnharry said:


> Noted appeaser Ronald Reagan met face to face with the Soviets, who were much deeper enemies of ours and an actual security threat to this nation. Another noted appeaser James Baker has actually talked to the Syrians on behalf of this President and is in favor of doing the same with the Iranians.
> 
> No matter who our next president is, I pray he acts like a grown up and conducts actual diplomacy and not this pseudo-isolation crap that we're doing right now.


+1 to all of that.

One of the more silly things this administration has done is practice a neocon behavior that it's prudent to base policy off of extremes, rather than use them as a guide, because life works in extremes, which is, um doesn't.

A good book on the lack of diplomacy subject is Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarisim" which argues that we have lost our real diplomacy skills in favor of solving problems via cruise missle. There's plenty of venom for both Bush and Clinton here, although Bush would be still in charge.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> I know that this position is in favor right now to try to explain the disastrous foreign policy of this administration, but *rational and thoughtful Republicans and Democrats* have met with enemies and had discussions.
> 
> *Noted appeaser Ronald Reagan met face to face with the Soviets*, who were much deeper enemies of ours and an actual security threat to this nation. Another noted appeaser James Baker has actually talked to the Syrians *on behalf of this President* and is in favor of doing the same with the Iranians.
> 
> ...





Spence said:


> +1 to all of that.
> 
> One of the more *silly things this administration has done is practice a neocon behavior that it's prudent to base policy off of extremes*, rather than use them as a guide, because life works in extremes, which is, um doesn't.
> 
> ...


No, the USSR was a Super Power and JB3 is not a POTUS. Besides these two large differences, there is a further distinction between what JB3 proposed in 2006 which we have done, i.e. regional discussions about stabilizing Iraq; and what Obama is talking about doing, i.e. FtF non-conditional POTUS talks with Iran re: nukes. The later is appeasement and it does give them something they want desperately. You can argue and make emotional statements, but you *are* wrong on the facts and you are not acting rationally and thoughtfully as grown-ups. Lower-level people talk to Syria all the time and Iran fairly frequently; to say otherwise is to repeat the lies and rhetoric of politicians and hacks.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

maxnharry said:


> Noted appeaser Ronald Reagan met face to face with the Soviets, who were much deeper enemies of ours and an actual security threat to this nation.


The Russian were rational. They were not nihilists and by the 1980's there foreign policy was not idealogical but based on _realpolitik_. In fact, the dream of Bolshevik style revolution being exported to other countries died during the 1920's and 30's. We spoke with the Russians because:
A) They were a super power and had to be dealt with in such a way (I don't think either country wanted to go to war with the other).

B) We not only represented ourselves during "talks" but other countries as well. We spoke for the free world and the rest of the world was more than happy to allow us to do the heavy lifting. Sure as hell France had no leverage with the USSR.

Looking back on it, I don't think the USSR was quite the threat as people once imagined. We both used the principal of deterrence to cancel one another out so talking and negotiating was the only real option.



> BTW, it's still not appeasement unless you actually make a concession in exchange for something.


Then what is the point of talking? Should we discuss the weather, or whether the new Iron Man movie is true to its comic book roots? Tell me what we should talk about. What is the common ground? All negotiations involve give and take. What are we willing to give and what should we take? Talking is not a policy. One develops a policy and negotiations/talks are then an instrument of that policy which may or may not be used.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

pt4u67 brings up a fair point regarding the difference between 1980s USSR and the idiot that is Ahmadinejad.

I think that a better case for discussions could be made for the Khatami period than now since he was somewhat progressive, but Ahamdinejad is nothing more than a fool.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> The Russian were rational. They were not nihilists and by the 1980's there foreign policy was not idealogical but based on _realpolitik_. In fact, the dream of Bolshevik style revolution being exported to other countries died during the 1920's and 30's. We spoke with the Russians because:
> A) They were a super power and had to be dealt with in such a way (I don't think either country wanted to go to war with the other).
> 
> B) We not only represented ourselves during "talks" but other countries as well. We spoke for the free world and the rest of the world was more than happy to allow us to do the heavy lifting. Sure as hell France had no leverage with the USSR.
> ...


The Soviets are rational in retrospect, but they tossed plenty of bombastic talk our way (wow-just like Iran).

The point of talking is to determine what the other party actually wants. Common ground isn't something that is present at the outset. Common ground would be a positive, but challenging outcome to achieve. It is certainly possible that nothing would be achieved, but that's not a reason not to talk. I can't recall a case when our refusal to talk with someone actually achieved anything. Can you? I accept that it can be a tactic to signal displeasure with how talks are going, but it certainly hasn't achieved anything for us yet.

The harsh truth is that we lack the national will to respond with force to Iran, North Korea and others. The numbers of folks we have in uniform are insufficient, so either we start talking or we start drafting to achieve our foreign policy aims.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm getting so tired of the Bush Administration refusing to talk to our enemies ...



> Iran's government has fiercely denied the charges, refusing to take part in *the next round of talks* with American officials on security in Iraq until American troops stop killing innocent people in Sadr City.


https://www.economist.com/world/afr...ory_id=11332333&CFID=5977542&CFTOKEN=80262833

The next round of talks? What talks?

oooh ... the talks Baker's ISG recommended in 2006. I'm all clear now.ic12337:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> The harsh truth is that we lack the national will to respond with force to Iran, North Korea and others. The numbers of folks we have in uniform are insufficient, so either we start talking or we start drafting to achieve our foreign policy aims.


The harsh truth is ... you've left the realm of rational and jumped headlong into the ridiculous.
ic12337:

The latest from the Pentagon's Iran Policy Committee: "... bombing would be launched by 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types. Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their [Iranian] nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."

North Korea? 

Yes, we need a larger Military. No question. We should have never down-sized it in the first place. We had 'what 40,000?' more troops without a draft before 1992. Speaking of disastrous policies ... how's that working out for us?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

maxnharry said:


> The Soviets are rational in retrospect, but they tossed plenty of bombastic talk our way (wow-just like Iran).
> 
> The point of talking is to determine what the other party actually wants. Common ground isn't something that is present at the outset. Common ground would be a positive, but challenging outcome to achieve. It is certainly possible that nothing would be achieved, but that's not a reason not to talk. I can't recall a case when our refusal to talk with someone actually achieved anything. Can you? I accept that it can be a tactic to signal displeasure with how talks are going, but it certainly hasn't achieved anything for us yet.
> 
> The harsh truth is that we lack the national will to respond with force to Iran, North Korea and others. The numbers of folks we have in uniform are insufficient, so either we start talking or we start drafting to achieve our foreign policy aims.


There was bombastic talk but there was always the understanding that behind the scenes is where the real action was. That's how _Realpolitik_ works. As for trying to figure out what the other party wants, I think Iran has already stated it. They want the U.S. out of the middle east and Israel wiped off the map. And once again you are missing the point. To the Iranians, violence is a precondition to any negotiation. To them force and negotiation go hand in hand. We must be willing to challenge them on that level and make them see that they have no options. We need not be in a giving mood, we don't have to be. We hold the cards and they need to snap into line. I think a good old fashioned _Melian Dialog_ would clarify things for them. I their mind, to negotiate without the real threat of violence is a sign of weakness so to offer talks simply gives the false impression of weakness which they will use to buy time and stall.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

ksinc said:


> The harsh truth is ... you've left the realm of rational and jumped headlong into the ridiculous.
> ic12337:
> 
> The latest from the Pentagon's Iran Policy Committee: "... bombing would be launched by 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types. Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their [Iranian] nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."
> ...


Good morning king of the ad hominem. That's twice in one thread. Impressive.

My comments were specifically about PEOPLE in the military. I am not sure why the idea persists that the nations of the Middle East are populated with jeffersonian democrats (small D) who are just waiting to throw off the yokes of their oppressive leaders. Certainly no evidence of that.

I agree that downsizing the military was a bad idea. Why do you assume I supported that?

As to your point about our ability to counter Iran with an air strike-yes we can. So why then do we act so concerned about them? They are a troublesome regional player, but certainly not a major league player. I guess the question is what happens after said airstrike? Do they become a model democracy or do they end up an even more severe Islamic republic?


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> There was bombastic talk but there was always the understanding that behind the scenes is where the real action was. That's how _Realpolitik_ works. As for trying to figure out what the other party wants, I think Iran has already stated it. They want the U.S. out of the middle east and Israel wiped off the map. And once again you are missing the point. To the Iranians, violence is a precondition to any negotiation. To them force and negotiation go hand in hand. We must be willing to challenge them on that level and make them see that they have no options. We need not be in a giving mood, we don't have to be. We hold the cards and they need to snap into line. I think a good old fashioned _Melian Dialog_ would clarify things for them. I their mind, to negotiate without the real threat of violence is a sign of weakness so to offer talks simply gives the false impression of weakness which they will use to buy time and stall.


I would love for us to return to Realpolitik. As for what the Iranians want, I think we underestimate the use of hyperbole and exaggeration on the Arab street and should not use media statements as a proxy for actual discussion. We need to actually talk to them to find out what they REALLY want. They know we won't leave the Middle East as long as there's oil there and they lack the ability to seriously challenge Israel.

They already know we hold all of the cards, that we could eliminate them completely and somehow that hasn't snapped them into line. I think we need another approach.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> Good morning king of the ad hominem. That's twice in one thread. Impressive.
> 
> My comments were specifically about PEOPLE in the military. I am not sure why the idea persists that the nations of the Middle East are populated with jeffersonian democrats (small D) who are just waiting to throw off the yokes of their oppressive leaders. Certainly no evidence of that.
> 
> ...


#1 BS. You are the one tossing them and I'm just returning them to sender. I bolded all of yours and you may note there are many. Just about every statement you've made has been an emotional attack on a person or a mistruth (I rather generously, I think, gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were repeating them unknowingly). If I wanted to Ad Hom there was plenty of impetus. Instead, I substantively but bluntly corrected your erroneous statments and platitudes. Where you characterized people or ideas with ad homs I handed them back to you. I'm sorry you don't like it. Don't start it and it won't happen. Consider this the diplomacy for which you were crying out.

#2 In addition, you *are* factually wrong at almost every turn. What are we supposed to do, just suffer you? I think I have been rather patient to be frank about it.

#3 Your attacks on Bush, Reagan, and truth where only comments about PEOPLE in the military?! Ok, thanks for clarifying.

#4 Well, although not a super power, they *are* a major influence in the region. They are the primary funding support of all terrorists organizations. They have promised to destroy Israel and they are killing Americans. I think if you reread some of your comments and some of Obama's comments you will find it is your side that is "so concerned about them" and making irrational, emotional, and naive calls for the immediate need for POTUS talks because we aren't talking to them (erroneous). I think if you take a deep breath and actually look around you, you will see the President, State, and the Pentagon are following a very methodic, very telegraphed, very patient course with Iran ... pretty much begging them to turn back and they wrecklessly ignore every bit of it. We did the same with Iraq if you will remember and Saddam never believed us. I think that issue is no longer in play. In the pull-quote I gave you from the PIPC you may have noticed it leaves the issue for the Iranian people to take back their country. I think it's clear we are not going to do another Iraq in Iran.

#5 I made no presumption you supported down-sizing our military. I merely debunked your draft theory by pointing out the facts of our previous natural/voluntary force strength. And; I asked you how down-sizing was working out since you seemed deeply concerned about disastrous administration policies.

#6 You actually bring up a good point and one of major contention in Iraq with many Conservatives. What happens after we topple them? We wrongfully IMHO decided we had a responsibility to rebuild Iraq, even the parts we didn't break. I really didn't agree with that, but I think we have guilt over the past with Saddam. We certainly would with Iran too. We meddled in both ... the Shaw, etc.. My personal view is they asked for it, they get it, and cleaning it up is their problem. I think we need to be a little harsher. Most of the major problems have occured in the "cleanup phase." That's where "the mission" has gotten cloudy. When the mission is simply to kill the enemy we do rather well. The Military campaign was the most impressive in history and it is often overlooked. When you break Gen. Patton's distance:time record for moving mechanized infantry you've done something.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Who do you think the President was really talking about?
> 
> You can pick more than one for this one.


The President read a speech written in advance and prepared for him. I'd be hard-pressed to speculate about what all the people who had a hand in drafting it wanted it to say, what they think it said and who ultimately blue-penciled the final copy prior to uploading it to the telepromter and printing the hard-copy.

One of the hardest things about being President is to read your speeches without a sense of discovery. Eisenhower had an amusingly difficult time with this, Reagan was a master in this matter, and the current President simply isn't that good of a public speaker to really nuance anything.

But sure as heck, though, Senator Obama took the speech personally and I can think there must have been some smiles in the White House at that.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> The President read a speech written in advance and prepared for him. I'd be hard-pressed to speculate about what all the people who had a hand in drafting it wanted it to say, what they think it said and who ultimately blue-penciled the final copy prior to uploading it to the telepromter and printing the hard-copy.
> 
> One of the hardest things about being President is to read your speeches without a sense of discovery. Eisenhower had an amusingly difficult time with this, Reagan was a master in this matter, and the current President simply isn't that good of a public speaker to really nuance anything.
> 
> ...


That's interesting about the speeches. I have seen 'W' unscripted and he's actually pretty darn good. In a speech, he is usually awful. He is the opposite of Obama - who is amazing on the speeches and is equally awful unscripted. I saw Dick Morris comment on this when Hannity was trying to say it evened out and Morris said the problem is Presidents form policy through speech-making. So, it's not really an either/or deal. I think W's lack of speech-making ability has hurt us a great deal. Compared to Blair, for example, W is a stronger leader / personality IMHO, but he loses in the public opinion because Blair is such an eloquent speech-maker. Blair is also a bit like Reagan in that he is good off-script as well. Still Blair was depicted as W's poodle famously.

I think Reagan is so well regarded as the master communicator because he could do both and more. He was not only able to go off script, but he also made candid impromptu remarks that were usually better and more memorable such as, "I paid for this microphone." When I look at the old Reagan clips I just think "who couldn't love that guy?" It still amazes me some people never warmed to him. His interviews with WFB, Jr. are particularly good.

That's at the heart of the problem I have with two senators running for President. I think they give good speeches in the Senate, but I don't really see it as the same type of speeches. Robert Byrd can give a good speech, but there is nothing in them. I hear he's better by a bonfire :devil:

Unfortunately, both Obama and McCain fail to inspire me with their speeches and there is no meaningful call to action as there was with Reagan IMHO.

I have always thought Clinton did it his own way. He doesn't really fit into either mold. He's so good. I would put him above Reagan except for my thought that Reagan did more with it and presented a clearer agenda. I'm not sure which had more skills and which had more talent. Their approaches were very different and yet so much the same. I think they are the most interesting Presidents in a long time.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

I was speaking specifically about a formal public speech. Mr. Bush is indeed better when he's relaxed and not forced to read things. I've seen him go on for hours off-camera and in private in a manner that is at once relaxing and quite informative. It's hard not to like someone when they are in their own element and having a good time.

Reagan, like Senator Byrd, grew up in that distant radio age when oratory was an art, practically the sole form of mass communication one had control over. (Dastardly newspapers then and now tend to edit.) Reagan was also the first President to truly master the teleprompter. He was so at ease with this tech he could read a speech cold and make anyone believe it came not only from his heart but also from long, long study of the issues. Quite remarkable!

I agree with you about President Clinton. He's hard to classify, not an old fashioned orator or a new "folksy" sort of speaker. He's got a highly individual and powerful talent, able to convince you of dangerous foreign aggression and the virtues of the pancake breakfast he just had, often in the same sentence. Clinton and Regan are studied widely for their public speaking and well they should be. 

It's a hard thing for our current crop of candidates to follow, the Clinton-Reagan years, for those that remember them, that is. 

Cordially,
Adrian Quay

PS
I haven't seen it in years, but the speech Eisenhower gave in 1952 titled "I shall go to Korea" about him going to Korea is very funny. No one had told him he was going on the trip. He was reading the speech cold in which this was announced and when he got to the part about him actually going it almost looks like someone waking up in bed to the sound of a fire alarm. Talk about discovery. Priceless moment!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

maxnharry said:


> We need to actually talk to them to find out what they REALLY want. They know we won't leave the Middle East as long as there's oil there and they lack the ability to seriously challenge Israel.
> 
> They already know we hold all of the cards, that we could eliminate them completely and somehow that hasn't snapped them into line. I think we need another approach.


What they really want is security and an ability to be able to exert their influence in the middle east. They cannot do that conventionally therefore they will want to:
1) Maintain a proxy army of terrorists
2) Develop nuclear weapons

They see that as their only means of challenging Israel. As for who is holding what cards, we know we hold the cards but they don't think so. Why? Listen to the political discourse in this country and figure it out for yourself. To the Iranians, talk and negotiation is something one does to buy time. In their thinking if we had all the advantage, why haven't we attacked yet? We attacked Iraq, but why not them? We must be scared of something so lets keep pushing. Its the same mistake Khrushchev made when he saw Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall and then decided to push the limits and came close to starting a war.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> What they really want is security and an ability to be able to exert their influence in the middle east. They cannot do that conventionally therefore they will want to:
> 1) Maintain a proxy army of terrorists
> 2) Develop nuclear weapons
> 
> They see that as their only means of challenging Israel. As for who is holding what cards, we know we hold the cards but they don't think so. Why? Listen to the political discourse in this country and figure it out for yourself. To the Iranians, talk and negotiation is something one does to buy time. *In their thinking if we had all the advantage, why haven't we attacked yet? We attacked Iraq, but why not them?* We must be scared of something so lets keep pushing. Its the same mistake Khrushchev made when he saw Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall and then decided to push the limits and came close to starting a war.


"I'll take European greed and G7+1 member nations for $100, please." :devil:

I know, I know, Bush is the bad guy ... :icon_smile_big:

I agree with you. Iran is trying to use an improved-Soviet strategy in the same way Saddam tried to use an improved-Nazi strategy. For example, Iran understands "economics drive process" in a way the Soviets never did until it was too late. Also, compare the use of Russian proxies to the use of Iranian proxies; including how they use them in our own backyard. They have learned some valuable lessons and employ some pretty clever tactics. I think those that say "treat them like Russia" (such as a summit) see the similarities, but miss significant differences.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> What they really want is security and an ability to be able to exert their influence in the middle east. They cannot do that conventionally therefore they will want to:
> 1) Maintain a proxy army of terrorists
> 2) Develop nuclear weapons
> 
> They see that as their only means of challenging Israel. As for who is holding what cards, we know we hold the cards but they don't think so. Why? Listen to the political discourse in this country and figure it out for yourself. To the Iranians, talk and negotiation is something one does to buy time. In their thinking if we had all the advantage, why haven't we attacked yet? We attacked Iraq, but why not them? We must be scared of something so lets keep pushing. Its the same mistake Khrushchev made when he saw Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall and then decided to push the limits and came close to starting a war.


Yeah-not buying it. They know who holds the cards. They're no actual threat to Israel or the Israelis would have already taken care of business. This has been a fun diversion, but not why I'm at AAAC. Out


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Oops. Nevermind.

T3G


----------

