mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

May 19, 2008

Appeasement

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 2:19 am

Some random hot Israeli Army chick

let’s go to the theatre. i’m going to buy tickets. we’ll get a bucket of popcorn, and cokes all around.

but i never ever said we’d see a movie.

bush was giving a speech to an ally designed to reassure them of our commitment. the nazi reference was used as a becuase it would strike a close chord with the audience.

he appeasement jab was taken at former president jimmy carter who was busy holding talks with hamas leaders. a move that is jailable by the way.

bho has made a faux pas. he is trying to use the bush speech to deny his own appeasement / talks intentions. but it is backfiring on him because it is actually bringing his intentions of holding talks with terrorists to light. bad move bho.

by the way. the liberals like to use the tactic of lieing. they say will out and out lie and claim that the issue is something it is not. the msm will broadcast their lie and represent it as true, instead of actually investigating it and exposing it as the lie it is.

the lie here is that the ‘current administration’ is listing as preconditions to talks the very subjects of the talks. they are saying that the us is demanding that the iran give up its nuclear ambitions before we talk….. about their nuclear ambitions.

this is not the case. and coincidentally enough, it is former presidnet carter who determined the preconditions to any talks with iran.

they must condemn, and apologize for seizing our diplomatic corps hostage when they took our embassy in 1979. and their president was one of the hostage takers.

barack sucks. he is a novice. he is a leftist. what does he think you do during direct talks? play scrabble? you negotiate, you make concessions and get concessions. with a rational entity not in violation of treaties they have signed, direct negotiations are a good thing. with irrational totalitarians, there should be no talks.
how long before he raises the issue of reparations? think the deficit is huge now?

7 Comments »

  1. There’s nothing sexier than a woman with a gun!

    Comment by Clay — May 20, 2008 @ 3:42 am

  2. I noticed that many academics view Iran as a rational player. I have had a number of discussions on the topic and each time was told that my concerns over the whole messhianic prophecies being the centerpoint of foreign speeches (as made by Ahmedinejad), of nuclear ambition being linked to said messhianic prophecy (again, hinted by Ahmedinejad), are merely fluff. (Yet many of these same academics go ballistic about GWB and his references to his religious beliefs.) Iran, as lead by the mullahs who hold true power, is a rational actor. Or so I am continually told.

    As for Obama, yes he is a novice. His forte is local politics. Only since his election to the U.S. Senate has he been immersed in national politics. And he shows a severe lack of global political awareness. Yet the MSM does not attack him the same way they did candidate Bush II who could not name “5 world leaders” in a televised pop-quiz.

    BTW, when was the last time a Senator (or Congressman) was elected to the presidency? You have to go back to Kennedy. (Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Bush I served as the Vice President before succeeding to the Presidency, and Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were state governors.) Perhaps another reason why Obama is continually compared with Kennedy. Yet this election is guaranteed to produce a President from the Senate (assuming either the Democrat or the Republican win).

    Comment by yup — May 21, 2008 @ 2:03 am

  3. mlah: “he appeasement jab was taken at former president jimmy carter”
    You really can’t say that. Because that’s not what he said. It could refer to Carter, or it could be a jab at Obama, but all we can say for sure is that it’s about “people who would do this” or whatever.

    Obama, if elected, won’t appease anybody. He just won’t, and you’re stupid and dishonest to suggest he will. Maybe he will talk to them, but he won’t appease them. He’s not a fucking idiot.

    “how long before he raises the issue of reparations?”
    Oh, STFU. Again, not gonna happen.

    Yup: “Yet many of these same academics go ballistic about GWB and his references to his religious beliefs”
    No one cares about W’s religious rhetoric anymore.

    “Iran, as lead by the mullahs who hold true power, is a rational actor. Or so I am continually told.”
    As it worked for W, it is just rhetoric to get the religious citizenry on their side. Iran is rational in the sense of not being so stupid as to bomb Israel, as that would bring about their own destruction.

    Comment by Gus — May 21, 2008 @ 8:29 pm

  4. Thanks Gus. I truly don’t understand the right’s position of not talking to the leaders of Iran. Not talking to them clearly hasn’t worked. It didn’t work with North Korea and it’s not working with Iran. Negotiation is not appeasement – negotiation, in fact, is the very opposite of appeasement. If anything is appeasement, it’s allowing North Korea to continue nuclear proliferation without talking to them! I glad we have a presidential candidate with the moral fortitude to call the Bush administration on this.

    Comment by James — May 22, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

  5. Obama talking to Iran is “moral fortitude”?? Wow. I mean, wow.

    We want Iran to apologize for an act of war against us. Simply own up to it. Say they’re sorry, even if they’re not. We’ll sit down and talk with them as soon as they can clear that off the table. Instead, they tell us to go f*ck ourselves, and work to build their nuclear weapons capability.

    So what, you say. They only want to be a (THE) regional power. They can’t and won’t hurt us. And since we can sit down to talk with North Korea, like Bubba Clinton did, then it’s all right for Obama to do the same with Iran. There’s a slight problem: we were and still are technically in a state of war against North Korea under the UN Security Council resolution of 1950 and our support for ally South Korea. We continue to have talks aimed at settling the war issue with North Korea in that little village of Panmunjom. Fun place to visit, by the way. The point is, we were already holding talks with North Korea as a result of our armistice even as Clinton agreed to pay out blackmail to Kim.

    Never mind that no meaningful progress was accomplished with North Korea from the point Bubba gave them what they wanted. Sure, they said they stopped nuclear development, even allowed international inspectors in. But they continued ballistic research. And did they really quit the nuclear research effort? Anyhoo, their society became oh so open and transparent. Life became good in North Korea and peace blossomed on the peninsula — until Bush came along and ruined it all by cutting off the blackmail payments to Kim. Then Kim had a snit and actually fizzled a nuclear weapon at the world. And how did Bush handle it? He used diplomatic pressure to bring China and Russia — the North’s bestest and most long-standing supporters — into the effort to create a sustainable solution and meaningful transformation of the regional security picture. It’s not just U.S. appeasement of the little dictator in Pyongyang, now, it’s a regional effort to achieve stability. James, you show a remarkable lack of understanding on that particular issue.

    Iran, now, they’re just peachy. They even told the Europeans to join us in f*cking ourselves. Has the Euro folks a bit worried, that does. But if we sit down with them and appease them just like Bubba did with North Korea, then we will have Peace In Our Time! However, unlike with North Korea — with whom we had direct talks as a result of that negotiated armistice — Iran has never owned up to their actions and agreed to enter into talks with us. Stupid Americans, insisting that Iran actually take responsibility for actions it committed. So we just be the adult, forget about 1979, and ask the mullahs to pretty please come sit at the table with us. Where we will what, exactly? Talk about the price of oil? What concessions do we give in order to just get the Iranians to sit down and talk? The Europeans, with all their vaunted soft power, have failed miserably at getting the Iranians to the table on the nuclear issue. How much more successful will the U.S. be, regardless of who occupies the White House?

    Of course, if we don’t show “moral fortitude” and appease Iran, then they will become a nuclear power. A nuclear Iran won’t prompt the Saudis to go nuclear, nor Egypt, Syria, etc. Nope, the Iranians as the regional hegemon will be a peachy keen state of affairs. But we can blame any problems resulting from that on Bush, right? Because that’s what the Left is good at doing.

    Gus, “no one cares about W’s religious rhetoric anymore” — would that be because he is a lame duck with an opposition Congress and in his final year of office? But a year, two years ago the people (on the left) were in a rage over Bush’s religious references. So how do you describe Ahmedinejad? He’s certainly no lame duck, and the mullahs are certainly not in the opposition party. Why do you so readily discount his religious rantings? I remind you that the American president is severely constrained by law and tradition — whereas Iran is actually a theocracy and Ahmedinejad’s rantings are actually part of that theocratic mission. Oh, I see, “it is just rhetoric to get the religious citizenry on their side.” So the mullahs need to have Ahmedinejad give a religious pep talk at the UN in order to make the Iranian citizenry happy. Because they don’t already see enough of the mullah’s propaganda in the state-run media. I suppose that’s why Hitler made some of his speeches, too. He never really meant what he said, that was just to keep the SS pumped about their cause. Or Kruschev with his shoe-pounding on the podium. That was to make the Soviet rank-and-file stand up and cheer for the Rodina! It wasn’t an actual threat to bury us at all. These dictators are just so tragically misunderstood!

    And James — did you catch that it was Jimmy Carter, the man who is the poster child for Leftist lunacy, who set the conditions for talking with Iran? It is not “the right’s position” — it is the policy of the United States as set by one of the most liberal presidents in recent memory.

    Comment by yup — May 25, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

  6. and as i understand it. the rub at stopping further talks in regard to nkorea is the fact the nkorea insists the talks be bilateral. us-nkorea. whereas the us aka bush at the moment is insisting we not “go it alone”, and act unilaterally as apparently the left is suggesting we do. he is insisting on 6 way talks, including nkorea, skorea, us, russia, china and japan.

    you are really going to suggest the us acts uniltarelly in regard to nkorea? i’m going to call you a hypocrite!

    Comment by mlah — May 25, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

  7. This moment is insisting way to talks. please come sit at the table with us. Where we will what, exactly? Talk about the price of oil? What concessions do we give in order to just get the Iranians to sit down.

    Comment by britische Lebensversicherung — May 26, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress