A VC - Latest Comments in Appeasement

Re: Appeasement

Krassen Dimitrov — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:43:28 -0000

"But I, for one, never placed that much stake in the WMD issue ... People seem all too eager to forget the litany of reasons for which we invaded Iraq"

Well, there we go, there was NO littany. I cannot speak for all people but I speak for MANY who were in my shoes: I was a father of two little children, a baby and a two-year old (we have three now ), and I was told by a respected man like Colin Powell that Saddam had purchased yellowcake from Niger. Yellowcake is enrcihed uranium ore. Once you get uranimum-235 to some reasonable purity, an undergraduate can make a bomb out of it. That WAS the deal for me and I believe for many other people. You and others like you may have had other motives, certainly oil may have been a factor, or whatever. Regular folks like us, with young kids, were scared.

Ambassador Wilson took an unpopular stand in 2002 and 2003 to say that this claim was not credible. Turns out, he was telling the truth. I want to know why the President of the United States intimidated, retaliated and smeared the guy who was telling the truth. I couldn't give a rat's ass about what kind of person Wilson is, womanizer, self-promoter, whatever. He was telling the truth and the president of the U.S. was not only lying to us, turns out, but was using all kinds of unsavory tactics to shut up and discredit the person who was telling the truth.
What happens next: there is an investigation in this whole affair, there is a guy who is found guilty of obstructing justice, and the President - the same person who has never pardoned anyone in Texas - decides now is the time to overrule a court's decision.
Principles? Are you kidding me? Scaring a nation shitless with talk about yellowcake, while at the same time trying to supress evidence to the contrary, and when the whole thing unravels, in a truly "mafioso" style, take care of the guy who didn't "sing" ? Please!
If you want America to be enforcer of freedom around the world, that's fine, it's a policy issue that can be discussed (pretty much like McCain does now), the pros and cons considered by the people, and if the country decides that your position is the way to go - that is we need to go and bomb evil people - that's fine.
However, playing with people's most basic emotions - fear and self-preservation - by suppressing the truth, manipulating the facts, and "taking care" of convicted criminals who had covered up the whole shebang? that's just rotten...

Re: Appeasement

mrclark411 — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:22:27 -0000

it was, thus the good point. =)

Re: Appeasement

markslater — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:54:02 -0000

was it not you who identified it as a country in a prior post? if not my apologies.

Re: Appeasement

markslater — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:47:56 -0000

there is not one single social or moral principle or concept in the philosophy of that islamic state which has not been realized, carried in to action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the white ant.

Re: Appeasement

mrclark411 — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:46:40 -0000

Good point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Appeasement

markslater — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:42:38 -0000

and dubai in to a country.

Re: Appeasement

markslater — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:36:53 -0000

churchill anecdotes on chamberlain and munich:

"an old town clerk looking at european affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe" Chamberlain had once been mayor of birmingham

a few months after chamberlains return from munich, waving his famous piece of paper in 1938, during a debate on palestine, Malcolm Mcdonald (secretary of state for the colonies) had reached the end of a difficult speech and was discoursing lyrically about the land itself: "bethlehem where the prince of piece was born...." he intoned to be interupted by churchills voice "bethlehem? i thought neville was born in birmingham".

Re: Appeasement

markslater — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:58 -0000

" a fanatic is one who cant change his mind and won't change the subject" WC

Re: Appeasement

markslater — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:03:33 -0000

"an appeaser is one that feeds a crocodile - hoping that it will eat him last" WC

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:18:06 -0000

I'd observe, then, that mass-producing mechanisms for refining nuclear weapons grade material while insisting in English that they aren't and simultaneously crowing in Persian, Pashto, Farsi and Arabic that they're about to wipe out the great Satan and it's Israeli friends (i.e. lying to the English-speaking world) seems just a touch on the false-side of peaceful.

Re: Appeasement

chernevik — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:04:31 -0000

To my point above about bin Laden's ultimate target:

"In his second audio message in three days focusing on the Palestinians, the al-Qaida leader said the only way to liberate Palestine is to fight the Arab regimes that are protecting Israel. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/...

The extremists want to push us out of the region so as to weaken the incumbent Arab regimes that are their real business. Insofar as the goal is pushing us out, the extremists and the Iranians have goal alignment. If we leave Iraq, while the Iraqis are developing a stable politics with our help, both the extremists and the Iranians will conclude that pushing works, and will follow up with more of the same.

And why would they stop attacking us? After all, it seems to be working. Until we've demonstrated that it doesn't, any assurances we get from them would be simply tactical, and temporary.

Re: Appeasement

andyswan — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:23:57 -0000

A high-profile meeting (which will ALWAYS be viewed as a negotiation) with your sworn enemy is only a good idea if you are the weaker and less-respected of the two parties.

Re: Appeasement

fredwilson — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:43:05 -0000

my first boss taught me a very important lesson:

watch what they do, not what they say

Re: Appeasement

-=apostle=- — Sun, 18 May 2008 06:52:21 -0000

Sounds like idealistic parroting. Sorry, religious zealots anywhere aren't just reasoned with. Those folks over there are more hardcore about their religion than the far-right Christians in this country. Obama couldn't get ppl in West Virgina to vote for him. What makes you think Obama's gonna turn the ship in Muslim country if he had the chance? A tip for you - he wouldn't be able to. Interesting that so many of you ppl completely forgot 9/11 (personally, we didn't need a wmd argument to go into iraq, we had years of iraqi U.N. violations on the books after the first war, plus the sponsoring of palestinian homicide bombers, plotting to kill a president, etc.). The whole of the muslim extremist world needs to be beaten HARD with that big stick you mentioned to insure we don't have any Muslim bruthas getting any subsequent bright ideas, and we're not even half way there. But don't worry, as long as there are ppl in this country who will use the big stick rather than talk about the big stick, your kumbaya love-ins will be safe. Ppl who talk about the world in academic terms, but don't have the guts to fight have no concept of what needs to be done. We're dealing with a scourge, don't get all high-brow about it, just flush the scourge down the toilet. It's that simple.

Re: Appeasement

curmudgeonly troll — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:35 -0000

I seem to recall Hitler invaded Poland based on phony intelligence and claims they were a threat to the homeland.

Worth noting too that Bush's grandfather was Thyssen's man in America, at a time Thyssen family members were bankrolling Hitler's rise to power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/w...

And Prescott Bush was even mentioned in connection with a putsch against Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:21:43 -0000

Couple of points to make here. First, the GOP is losing because the GOP is nominating...well...losers. It is then supporting those losers with...more losers. It is a party that has completely abandoned its core set of principles, and the public has subsequently lost faith in that party's rhetoric. Note also that each of those special election losses were to very conservative Democrats.

Second, the "Obama rhymes with Osama" thing. It would be helpful to recall that it was a Democrat who brought up the issue of Barry's middle name, not some GOP'er. And it was again a Democrat, a Senator this time, who enabled the entire (albeit ridiculous and sophomoric) "rhyme" to become an issue of any kind. Even now, that rhyme is used by conservative media folk primarily to poke fun at Ted Kennedy more than it is used to actually drive opinion about Barack.

Now, if you don't think a man's voluntary associations draw legitimate questions regarding his character, or that character is not an important factor to consider when hiring or electing an executive of any kind, well...I guess we'd have to just disagree here (but Fred's blog is absolutely a worthy venue for such a discussion). As shallow as the CJH crowd's attacks on Barack can be, the question of character, particularly when the alternatives are a Clinton and John McCain, is extremely important to many people. As well it should be. This is not fear-mongering - no one I know of is suggesting that Barack's avoidance of reference to his middle name means he would like to turn America into a part of a new Caliphate. Rather, it is part of a broader argument against his candidacy that suggests given his lack of experience running anything of importance with measurable success, his willingness to lie to his supporters and to the general public about his past associations, his inability to construct coherent positions with respect to a wide array of policy issues, AND given his character flaws that seem to be multiplying by the day, perhaps this man is not quite fit for the Presidency.

It seems that the whole appeasement argument has taken on a life of its own, and has forgotten the central fact that this man said he would sit down with leaders of extraordinarily despotic regimes WITHOUT preconditions of any kind. I'm sorry, I don't care which side of the argument as to whether or not this qualifies as appeasement you side with, this is a shockingly absurd policy suggestion.

So too is the suggestion that recalling the words of those would wish us ill will somehow qualifies as fear mongering. And to be perfectly honest, I think that kind of mudslinging is every bit as bad as anything silly being excreted from bowels of the right. None of it moves the nation forward in any way.

Your comments regarding Iraq and the situation there are beneath contempt - the suggestion that a people learning how to stand on their own, to formulate a set of principles worth fighting for, to protect their own against insurgents that would seek to establish a Taliban-like regime along the Euphrates, and to move beyond one of modern history's most unbelievably horrible dictators is hardly "stupid" or "laughable" and certainly does not constitute a lack of reason behind the deaths that have resulted. Someone named themselves "YourHateWillConsumeYou" in response to one of my previous posts (which displayed no such tendencies). Seems his vitriol was misplaced...

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:16:50 -0000

You failed here to address SteveKane's question - "do you think the radical islamists are anywhere near that point?"

If you do, it would seriously call into question your interpretation of the words coming out of the mouths of some of our worst enemies, including Iran's current president.

If you do not, it kind of makes this entire appeasement argument look pretty silly, doesn't it?

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:12:37 -0000

Ouch...

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:09:08 -0000

But many of those who are "blowing himself and others up" are indeed wealthy, and have had access to education. See the comment above regarding the relative economic status of the 9/11 hijackers.

The entire "poverty causes terrorism" argument is borne out an unwillingness to examine the root causes of that poverty - poverty is a symptom, not a disease. It is a lazy position to hold, and to be quite frank, the adherence to it by so many who are, in fact, wealthy themselves displays a shocking lack of understanding of money, wealth, culture and the actual role those elements play in human affairs.

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:56:33 -0000

"Nope, I can't do that, he has no principles. Sure, freedom is good and there are evil people in the Middle East. But that's not his principle! If freedom is good, how come we don't do anything with Burma? Or Turkmenistan? If democracy's good, then how come Putin's soul's is good, too?"

Krassen, I admire your sentiments. First, let me say that I did not comment on whether or not the President HAS principles - I merely stated that the thought process that led him to his decision to invade Iraq was sound (and in my opinion, the decision he made was the right one - others will always disagree, sometimes vehemently, and that is perfectly legitimate). And saying the man has no principles is ludicrous - he clearly has principles. He is HATED for his principles. Whether or not he has well-reasoned principles, or actually adheres to those principles are different matters entirely. I think you may be surprised how often I would tend to side with the President's detractors when discussing those issues, but alas, that is for a different time and place.

Now, why don't we do something about those other nations? Great question, and I'm with you 100% that something should indeed be done (perhaps militarily, perhaps not, but that's not the gist of what I'm trying to say). But why stop there? Why not take care of Darfur, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries while we're at it? Well, the simple answer is because we can't. Not given what's occupying our resources right now. There are tomes being written on the web and in print about the waves of issues that this particular discussion generates, so we'll leave it at that.

And I agree that the President's publicly stated judgment with respect to Vladimir Putin's character was wildly off the mark.

Now for this last bit. "Not when you lie to the public about WMD, then retaliate against a legitimate sceptic (Joe Wilson) and then pardon the guy who covered everything up." Whether or not W lied about WMD will be debated for decades, until the full and unclassified account of what he knew, when he knew it is released. I personally don't think he lied about it, just as I don't think any of the other intelligence organizations in the world lied about it - including those from nations antagonistic to our case in venues like the U.N. But I, for one, never placed that much stake in the WMD issue - if Saddam had WMD, they should have been forcibly removed irrespective of whether or not he had anything to do with Islamo-fascist terrorism. People seem all too eager to forget the litany of reasons for which we invaded Iraq, but we'll let that slide for now as well.

What I will take serious issue with is your invocation of the Joe Wilson situation - not because I don't like what you have to say, but rather because it is a topic that has been so thoroughly exposed as a fabricated controversy that you run the risk of having anything else you argue written off. I would suggest you revisit the Senate Intelligence Committee reports on Joe Wilson, which exposed the man as a complete fraud, and the case one of inherent institutional bias propagated by a very silly case of nepotism, backed by a rather absurd willingness to draw more attention to oneself in the hopes that the attention will obscure the fact that you lied through your teeth about every important disclosure you claim to have made. There are very few public figures who have been more thoroughly discredited than that man, and you harm your ability to make a legitimate case against much of anything by bringing him up.

Freedom, motherhood and apple pie, I think we can agree, are all good things. And you're right, they aren't, taken together, a principle. But I ever implied that they were.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. TT

Re: Appeasement

tetsuotrees — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:05:01 -0000

"How about throwing a puppy into a ravine? Or any of the other atrocities some of our misguided soldiers who have been written off by this Administration."

Uhhh. Decapitating humans. Throwing a puppy into a ravine. The inability to thoughtfully distinguish between the relative weight of actions rears it's ugly head, with fantastically ridiculous effect. The point here, my friend, is that the infidel bloodlust mentioned is deeply ingrained into the psyche of those who wielded those knives, and is beyond the capacity of rational dialog to ameliorate. So too, apparently, is the urge among some in our own western world to reduce the relative impact of everything to the lowest common denominator. Seriously, your comment here is almost shockingly naive. How widespread in American culture is the desire for mass murder? Even those who supported the Iraq war grow extremely weary of the bloodshed, and this as the overwhelming majority of the blood being shed is of those who would seek to destroy us. And if you've ever spoken to anyone who has engaged the enemy, you will find that many harbor severe reservations about taking life except for under the most extreme circumstances. Even then, the experience scars many, sometimes irreparably, and always tragically.

"Let's not pretend that the US at large is supportive of homosexuals. Just take a drive through any state in this country that doesn't touch the Pacific or Atlantic to have your eyes opened."

Well now let's see here. So you're saying that fly-over country isn't gay friendly. The last time I checked, there are some rather significant population concentrations between the Pacific and Atlantic that boast large and thriving homosexual populations. I used to live near Boys Town in Chicago, and certainly didn't see any stonings there. Hmmm, tell you what - why don't we let that one sit for a sec and move to a more personal example. I grew up in a town of 280 people, two hours from the nearest large city, smack dab between the coasts. You would be hard pressed to find a place further from an ocean on the North American continent. Gay people there? You betcha. Vilified by the community? Not at all. STONED TO DEATH IN PUBLIC VENUES? You've got to be fucking kidding me. Again, this whole relativity thing has got to stop my friend. Eyes opened? Good one...

"No argument here. Wrong is wrong."

...

"ummmmm, Pr0n?"

Ummmmm, choice? I don't think one can make the case that there's a legitimate comparison to be made between Jenna Jamison and oh, say, Nojoud Muhammed Nasser. Period.

"Our ally in the region has nukes. From the Iranian perspective, if hostile parties (Israel and us) are clamoring to topple you and have a massive military force massed on your border, what are you going to do? Nothing? Clearly you never played a game of Risk and "accidentally" nudged the board when faced with a similar situation."

Quick, name the last ten times an Israeli Prime Minister stated it was the Israeli State's intent to wipe out all of the surrounding muslim countries...
...
...
...Sorry, too hard? Try this one: what nation is pro-actively engaging in military operations in both Iraq, Lebanon and Israel?
...How about this: Why did Israel develop nuclear weapons capabilities? And, given that they're presumably the only nuclear power in the region, why haven't they exercised the use of that power?

Ok, I'm sorry, this must be very difficult for you. Let's do a little bit of role playing. I tell you I'm going to eradicate you and everything you hold dear, because I quite frankly don't think you or any of the things you hold dear have a right to exist. You go buy a gun, and tell all of your friends, family, co-workers, etc. to do the same. I announce to you, your friends, your family, your co-workers, and even to the next door neighbor's dog that I'm going to get a bigger gun, and when I get it, you will be no more. Who, precisely, is out of line here?

How fitting you bring the game of Risk up in a discussion about appeasement. I'll just let that one stand on its own.

Bye, bye. TT

Re: Appeasement

Krassen Dimitrov — Sat, 17 May 2008 12:44:35 -0000

"Admitting that he has been correct in principle is a first and necessary step in allowing our nation to correct his inability to properly execute. "
Nope, I can't do that, he has no principles. Sure, freedom is good and there are evil people in the Middle East. But that's not his principle! If freedom is good, how come we don't do anything with Burma? Or Turkmenistan? If democracy's good, then how come Putin's soul's is good, too?

Just saying: "I am for freedom, motherhood and apple pie" is not a principle. Not when you lie to the public about WMD, then retaliate against a legitimate sceptic (Joe Wilson) and then pardon the guy who covered everything up.

Re: Appeasement

thomasl824 — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:09:04 -0000

Jack Kennedy said that it was better to meet at the summit then at the brink. US diplomatic history is a dialog with countires that have been our ennemies. I would suggest reading Jack Reynolds Summits that gives an in depth look at the Hilter/ Chamberlain series of meetings that lead to Munich. It would help if some of guys on TV knew even the basics.

Re: Appeasement

Dan Weinreb — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:58:17 -0000

The idea that the present situation can be clearly analyzed as an analogy to Hitler and Munich is so preposterous -- but many people don't think critically. They just hear a simplistic point, and it confirms some preconception (Democrats are wimps), and hey presto! It's also amazingly simplistic to equate "engage Hamas" with "appease Hamas". Especially since "appease", in this context, also connotes "Believe them blindly when they make a promise". George Bush is despicable.

Re: Appeasement

dfriedman — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:32:25 -0000

I will say off the bat that you are of a political persuasion so opposed to mine that, were you to declare, in the middle of a political discussion that two plus two equals four, I would confirm it independently.

Therefore you may want to apply the appropriate discount on this comment.

That said, I think your conception of appeasement is naive. The argument against Obama's appeasement approach is not an argument in favor of W's conduct of this war; this war has been conducted incompetently at best. The argument against appeasement is more properly construed as one which posits that the religious extremists who we are fighting are deranged lunatics for whom the niceties of diplomacy and international opinion do not apply. To assert otherwise, in the vain hope that less blood will be shed, is to set yourself up for disappointment. Better to take a jaundiced, objective view of the people with whom we are fighting.