Bush blasts into Obama

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: sportage
CNN

JERUSALEM (CNN) ? In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
This is going to be a VERY dirty election! What has Bush got to lose?
Gotta agree, for once, with Dubya on this one. His approach has been flawless. Terrorism has become a thing of the past since his great successes in the ME :thumbsup:
To be fair, there have been no further terrorist attacks against the United States since the WoT began.

But, that could be akin to me saying that my keyboard keeps tigers away from me.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: sportage
CNN

JERUSALEM (CNN) ? In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
This is going to be a VERY dirty election! What has Bush got to lose?
Gotta agree, for once, with Dubya on this one. His approach has been flawless. Terrorism has become a thing of the past since his great successes in the ME :thumbsup:
To be fair, there have been no further terrorist attacks against the United States since the WoT began.

But, that could be akin to me saying that my keyboard keeps tigers away from me.
Knock on wood.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: sportage
CNN

JERUSALEM (CNN) ? In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
This is going to be a VERY dirty election! What has Bush got to lose?
Gotta agree, for once, with Dubya on this one. His approach has been flawless. Terrorism has become a thing of the past since his great successes in the ME :thumbsup:
To be fair, there have been no further terrorist attacks against the United States since the WoT began.

But, that could be akin to me saying that my keyboard keeps tigers away from me.
what type of keyboard? I'll take 5.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Joe Lieberman hit the nail right on the head when he said ?President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout ?Death to America? and ?Death to Israel,? and that holds that? if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers ? they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America?s friends and America?s enemies, and not confuse the two.?

I'm no Bush fan but I'm definitely not a BDS guy either. But at least Bush is smart enough to realize and publically state that Iran is a real threat to ME peace...to actually believe that diplomacy will magically solved this problem is truly "flawed and naive" thinking. Diplomacy is a tool that's proven ineffective in this case...what do we do...keep banging away hoping for a different result? Dems for some reason seem to think that they're incredibly good diplomats and can be much more effective. I'm still waiting for Pelosi's and Carter's visits to pay off....yawn...still waiting.
You have a few things that I would like to address so I will go in order of the way that you listed them.

1. Who has rejected Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah as threats and just how effective has bombing them indiscriminately been for us in winning them over?
2. Isn't NOT MAKING MORE enemies equally important as being able to distinguish between our friends and enemies?
3. Obama is smart enough to see the threat of Iran also.
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tom Lantos (D-CA) today introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, which empowers Americans to apply economic pressure on the Iranian regime by establishing a federal list of entities that invest in Iran and allowing for divestment. As Iran continues to threaten regional stability and international security by pursuing a nuclear program, rattling sabers at its neighbors ? especially Israel ? and supporting terrorist groups funded by its energy sector, this bill will enable investors and state and local governments to ensure they are not invested in companies that support Iran?s oil and gas industry.
4. Obama also said that he would not rule out surgical strikes so he is not just talking about negotiating in blind faith and has left military options open.
5. Diplomacy doesn't work overnight. And in case you are wondering how effective Carter can be, why don't you ask the Israelis how many times they have been attacked by Egypt in the last couple of decades.

To rule out diplomacy before you even begin talking or fighting is even more stupid than trying it in the first place. But Leiberman, Cheney, Bush and everyone else with a hard on to protect Israel at all costs don't want to face that reality.
1. I never said anything about those who don't think Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah are threats...so why do you ask that I name them? I was referring solely to diplomatic efforts and their effectiveness. I never advocated the use of indiscriminate bombing to "win them over". I must be missing something here...your comments appear to be from way out in left field.
2. Agree.
3. So what's his plan...to make it illegal to invest in companies that support Iran?s oil and gas industry? That will certainly "win them over"...can't wait!
4. Glad to hear that Obama said that he would not rule out surgical strikes...because diplomacy sure isn't working...this BTW is the main point of my post.
5. I agree that diplomacy doesn't work overnight...but you must also face the fact that sometimes it doesn't work at all...period. It's been 60 years now...well past "overnight" and diplomacy still isn't working. This is what separates the idealists from the realists. But perhaps we can take solstice in the fact that we took the moral high ground as we watch the mushroom clouds from the comfort of our living room. (Last sentence was for Red Dawn)

Good point with Carter and Egypt...unfortunately a purely diplomatic approach hasn't worked with the rest of the ME for a long, long time...meanwhile the "Death To Israel" chant grows louder and bolder...it's just a matter of time if we continue to stay on the current course...regardless of which party sits in the White House.


 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
But at least Bush is smart enough to realize and publically state that Iran is a real threat to ME peace.
One things for certain, since Bush has been President we have been more of a threat to peace in the ME than Iran.
Right...I'm sure that the Dems will fix it all shortly when they take the White House....like Carter did.
At least we would have a moral ground to stand on unlike now.
So I guess we would all feel better knowing we had the "moral high ground" the day after Iran nukes Israel or vice versa. Somehow that strikes me as very sad...I will find no comfort in that and hope you wouldn't either.
Why would Iran nuke Israel or vice versa? This is the sort of insane talk that makes this debate so difficult to have. There is literally zero reason either one of those states would nuke the other unless national destruction was at hand. Since everyone knows this, in a lot of ways a nuclear armed middle east could make the prospect of war LESS likely.

I'm so sick of the idea people have that Iran is just some sort of insane country that can't be predicted or controlled. They are every bit as rational actors as we in the US are if not moreso. They want nukes to defend themselves, not to nuke Israel. This is obvious.
I hope you're right.

 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Originally posted by: Jebeelzabub
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
So I guess we would all feel better knowing we had the "moral high ground" the day after Iran nukes Israel or vice versa. Somehow that strikes me as very sad...I will find no comfort in that and hope you wouldn't either.

Why in the world would Iran, providing they even had nuclear weapons, use them on Israel? This makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering that the Israeli's have advanced counterstrike capabilities that guarantee any attacker using nuclear weapons would suffer a counterattack an order of magnitude worse.

Essentially, you attack Israel, your entire country ceases to exist, and untold millions of your citizens would die. Why would Iran do this? Are you saying they're so irrational that they'd willingly sacrifice their entire country to attempt to destroy Israel?

Jebeelzabub
I don't know why anyone would want a war with Israel but the Iranian leader is constantly calling for the destruction of Israel and with his mindset I figure he'll try it sometime.

 

Jebeelzabub

Member
Mar 7, 2008
31
0
66
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Why would Iran nuke Israel or vice versa? This is the sort of insane talk that makes this debate so difficult to have. There is literally zero reason either one of those states would nuke the other unless national destruction was at hand. Since everyone knows this, in a lot of ways a nuclear armed middle east could make the prospect of war LESS likely.

I'm so sick of the idea people have that Iran is just some sort of insane country that can't be predicted or controlled. They are every bit as rational actors as we in the US are if not moreso. They want nukes to defend themselves, not to nuke Israel. This is obvious.
Heh, you pretty much read my mind Eskimospy. I just don't understand how people can think this way, when there's no evidence to suggest it. If the Iranians were crazy enough to sacrifice their entire country, all the people that they love (yes, even mullahs love their kids :D), their entire civilization, just to take out an Israeli city, wouldn't they act a little crazier than just spouting some rhetoric every once in a while? I mean, an action like nuking Israel is just frothing-at-the-mouth KRAZEE, considering the consequences.

Jebeelzabub
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,975
36,253
136
Originally posted by: woodie1

I don't know why anyone would want a war with Israel but the Iranian leader is constantly calling for the destruction of Israel and with his mindset I figure he'll try it sometime.
Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran, he is the president. He is pretty much their equivalent of the Queen of England. It's not that he's powerless, he's just powerless in most of the ways that matter... such as choosing who to nuke. What he thinks about the destruction of Israel means very little.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: naddicott
I really don't see how talking, or agreeing to talk, with an enemy is suddenly equivalent to "appeasement".
who said it is?
McCain apparently: McCain Agrees With Bush?s Remarks on Appeasement
Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the environment and other policies this week, on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush?s veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to ?terrorists and radicals'? was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.
Although to be fair, it seems the media synopses of the two Republican's statements are hair more direct than their literal quotes. What McCain said when directly asked if he was labeling Obama is an appeaser was that 'Obama needs to explain why he wants to talk to Iran'.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Joe Lieberman hit the nail right on the head when he said ?President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout ?Death to America? and ?Death to Israel,? and that holds that? if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers ? they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America?s friends and America?s enemies, and not confuse the two.?

I'm no Bush fan but I'm definitely not a BDS guy either. But at least Bush is smart enough to realize and publically state that Iran is a real threat to ME peace...to actually believe that diplomacy will magically solved this problem is truly "flawed and naive" thinking. Diplomacy is a tool that's proven ineffective in this case...what do we do...keep banging away hoping for a different result? Dems for some reason seem to think that they're incredibly good diplomats and can be much more effective. I'm still waiting for Pelosi's and Carter's visits to pay off....yawn...still waiting.
You have a few things that I would like to address so I will go in order of the way that you listed them.

1. Who has rejected Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah as threats and just how effective has bombing them indiscriminately been for us in winning them over?
2. Isn't NOT MAKING MORE enemies equally important as being able to distinguish between our friends and enemies?
3. Obama is smart enough to see the threat of Iran also.
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tom Lantos (D-CA) today introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, which empowers Americans to apply economic pressure on the Iranian regime by establishing a federal list of entities that invest in Iran and allowing for divestment. As Iran continues to threaten regional stability and international security by pursuing a nuclear program, rattling sabers at its neighbors ? especially Israel ? and supporting terrorist groups funded by its energy sector, this bill will enable investors and state and local governments to ensure they are not invested in companies that support Iran?s oil and gas industry.
4. Obama also said that he would not rule out surgical strikes so he is not just talking about negotiating in blind faith and has left military options open.
5. Diplomacy doesn't work overnight. And in case you are wondering how effective Carter can be, why don't you ask the Israelis how many times they have been attacked by Egypt in the last couple of decades.

To rule out diplomacy before you even begin talking or fighting is even more stupid than trying it in the first place. But Leiberman, Cheney, Bush and everyone else with a hard on to protect Israel at all costs don't want to face that reality.
1. I never said anything about those who don't think Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah are threats...so why do you ask that I name them? I was referring solely to diplomatic efforts and their effectiveness. I never advocated the use of indiscriminate bombing to "win them over". I must be missing something here...your comments appear to be from way out in left field.
2. Agree.
3. So what's his plan...to make it illegal to invest in companies that support Iran?s oil and gas industry? That will certainly "win them over"...can't wait!
4. Glad to hear that Obama said that he would not rule out surgical strikes...because diplomacy sure isn't working...this BTW is the main point of my post.
5. I agree that diplomacy doesn't work overnight...but you must also face the fact that sometimes it doesn't work at all...period. It's been 60 years now...well past "overnight" and diplomacy still isn't working. This is what separates the idealists from the realists. But perhaps we can take solstice in the fact that we took the moral high ground as we watch the mushroom clouds from the comfort of our living room. (Last sentence was for Red Dawn)

Good point with Carter and Egypt...unfortunately a purely diplomatic approach hasn't worked with the rest of the ME for a long, long time...meanwhile the "Death To Israel" chant grows louder and bolder...it's just a matter of time if we continue to stay on the current course...regardless of which party sits in the White House.
I go the impression that you were talking about specific people when you said the bolded part above. It reads as if you think that Obama has a naivety regarding threats that some nations and/or groups might pose.

My take on the importance of limiting American companies' ability to do business with Iran is pressured coercion. As they start to lose more and more money (Iran) and the desire to begin doing business with the multinationals based in the U.S. grows, they will be more willing to actually bargain/negotiate in a more serious manner.

I agree that there are times when diplomacy is not effective. But until you actually try it, you never know. Bush has completely shunned Iran from the beginning of his first term. Their rhetoric has gradually grown over that time. Previously, they were prone to some demonstrations, but nothing that the rest of the world really took notice of. They also offered to help us end the insurgency in Iraq and offered support after 9/11. Those are not the makings of a leadership (mullahs - the real leaders of the country) that is suicidally inclined.

Who knows what can happen when debate is the primary form of warfare. I have certainly changed some of my views that I felt very strongly about just by engaging in an open dialog with others that disagreed with me. Why can't we give them (or ourselves for that matter) the chance? Just because you talk doesn't mean you bow down to them or that you don't walk away saying..."They are freaking nuts and need to be smacked down".
 

CrazyHelloDeli

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2001
2,854
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Bush's solution to a fire: Throw gasoline on the fire because using water would just appease the arsonist.
Or, to illustrate the other extreme, some would rather ignore the fire and pretend nothing is burning because they think throwing water on it will just make it spread.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Originally posted by: Dari
Bush's solution to a fire: Throw gasoline on the fire because using water would just appease the arsonist.
Or, to illustrate the other extreme, some would rather ignore the fire and pretend nothing is burning because they think throwing water on it will just make it spread.
Your analogy skills equate to EPIC FAIL.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

I see nothing outrageous with the above comment.

I have a question for those of you who advocate negotiating with terrorists - what are you willing to offer, and what do you ask in return?

In a negotiation, you must be willing to offer something in return for that which you seek. What are you willing to offer?

Fern
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
I think the problem is that this administration is too quick to label anyone a terrorist and/or radical before even attempting diplomacy.

Before you offer something, you first have to know what the other side wants.
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,048
18
81
Originally posted by: Fern
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

I see nothing outrageous with the above comment.

I have a question for those of you who advocate negotiating with terrorists - what are you willing to offer, and what do you ask in return?

In a negotiation, you must be willing to offer something in return for that which you seek. What are you willing to offer?

Fern
Why is it always 'negotiating' or 'bargaining'? Why not just talking to...you know, sitting down and telling them where we stand on the issues.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

I see nothing outrageous with the above comment.

I have a question for those of you who advocate negotiating with terrorists - what are you willing to offer, and what do you ask in return?

In a negotiation, you must be willing to offer something in return for that which you seek. What are you willing to offer?

Fern
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with it and have devised your question based on it because yourself, others with the same mindset and the OP of the comment (Bush or his speechwriters) are thinking only in the terms of "negotiating with" instead of thinking about "talking with" them.

Negotiate implies that you will reach some acceptable agreement where both sides make some concessions and get something in return.

Talking implies that you "might" negotiate but that you might not as well. That you will try to get an understanding of what is motivating and/or driving the other person to do what they are doing and either convince them that there is a better way (in this scenario probably not likely) or maybe be able to figure out what is provoking them so that you might be able to not do it in the future.

Now, by that last sentence, I am not talking about running away from situations that might lead to the same reaction from those types of people but going about it in a manner which will marginalize the effect/message that they have that works on a greater amount of people that might have otherwise been sympathetic to them.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
There are some people you negotiate with (halfway sane people) and there are some people who you just can't negotiate with. As much as GWB administration being a failure in almost every category, I'm not sure if I disagree with what he said.

Syria... maybe. They're not as hard core as some of the other players in ME.

Hamas and Hezbollah? You can't negotiate with them.

Iran? Maybe when their crazy leader steps down. There's been a lot of blood ever since the CIA overthrew their democratically elected government decades ago.

Sudan isn't going to do anything in Darfur.

North Korea, Bill Clinton appeased them throughout his presidency. They take the food and aid and still build bombs.

The point is that you need to pick your battles. The lack of diplomacy of course is bad, but diplomacy doesn't always work. It was during one of the debates when Obama said that he would talk to leaders of rogue nations without precondition that I knew this guy is naive and unfit to be president. Hillary is dead on with that one. You let your lower level staff work their magic and then you move up.

Yet Obama supporters think Obama can do no wrong. He's some sort of messiah that would save us all. Give me a break. I'm voting for McCain.
 

CrazyHelloDeli

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2001
2,854
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Originally posted by: Dari
Bush's solution to a fire: Throw gasoline on the fire because using water would just appease the arsonist.
Or, to illustrate the other extreme, some would rather ignore the fire and pretend nothing is burning because they think throwing water on it will just make it spread.
Your analogy skills equate to EPIC FAIL.
Precisely. It was merely an attempt to show the absurdity of the original.
 

Jebeelzabub

Member
Mar 7, 2008
31
0
66
Originally posted by: woodie1

I don't know why anyone would want a war with Israel but the Iranian leader is constantly calling for the destruction of Israel and with his mindset I figure he'll try it sometime.
Well, I guess the way I see it, talk is cheap. In my view, he's just playing to his "30%". Bush has his 30 percent dead-enders, and he throws them some red meat now and then. Ahmadinejad simply does the same.

I mean, who knows, maybe he actually means what he says. But no rational person thinks Iran has any chance whatsoever of wiping Israel off the map, and I doubt many Iranians think it's such a great idea to try it anyway.

I've actually read that his remark was misquoted, and all he meant was that the current Israeli regime needed to be removed, but I can't speak to the accuracy of the translation.

Regards,

Jebeelzabub
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Fern
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

I see nothing outrageous with the above comment.

I have a question for those of you who advocate negotiating with terrorists - what are you willing to offer, and what do you ask in return?

In a negotiation, you must be willing to offer something in return for that which you seek. What are you willing to offer?

Fern
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with it and have devised your question based on it because yourself, others with the same mindset and the OP of the comment (Bush or his speechwriters) are thinking only in the terms of "negotiating with" instead of thinking about "talking with" them.

-snip-
Read the quote attributable to GWB and discussed here. See the word "negotiate"?

I didn't manufacturer the term. It is the topic of discussion.

Edit: Shall all this verbal *dancing* around about the term "negotiate" be taken as a sign that those who support it have no clear idea about the *why*, the *how* or the *what* as regards negotiating with terrorists?

Fern
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
I don't understand what's so wrong about sitting down and TALKING with a dictator from another country. I'm not saying that we should negotiate a peace treaty with an "evil" country or even bow down to their wishes, but what's wrong with an open dialog? Laying it all out on the table, trying to see things from a different perspective instead of a Western-centric viewpoint. That's what's wrong with this fucking country -- we think that we're better than everyone else -- the overachieving know-it-all bastard that we all hated in High School.

The United States is too caught up in the "We are Right, Everyone Else is Wrong" mentality. You can't end terrorism by simply ignoring the problem or by bombing countries to death -- at least not in this day and age. How the hell can we get anywhere in this world by being closed off to things that we don't like?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Fern
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

I see nothing outrageous with the above comment.

I have a question for those of you who advocate negotiating with terrorists - what are you willing to offer, and what do you ask in return?

In a negotiation, you must be willing to offer something in return for that which you seek. What are you willing to offer?

Fern
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with it and have devised your question based on it because yourself, others with the same mindset and the OP of the comment (Bush or his speechwriters) are thinking only in the terms of "negotiating with" instead of thinking about "talking with" them.

-snip-
Read the quote attributable to GWB and discussed here. See the word "negotiate"?

I didn't manufacturer the term. It is the topic of discussion.

Edit: Shall all this verbal *dancing* around about the term "negotiate" be taken as a sign that those who support it have no clear idea about the *why*, the *how* or the *what* as regards negotiating with terrorists?

Fern
Oh, I read the quote. And then I read your response and others on here and other boards also.

The problem is that the original quote is based on a false premise and you and others don't see that. Obama (whom even Bush's aides have said that the quote was aimed at) has not talked about negotiating with any terrorists. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

What he has said is that he will TALK with leaders of countries that we have shunned in an attempt to open a dialogue between the nations so as to better understand each other.

The only verbal dance that has taken place has been on the side of GWB and those that are defending a concept that isn't even valid.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Incompetence is a disaster...

I would submit that one reason why tough negotiations are never attempted by the Bush administration is because Bush himself is so stunningly incompetent that he is incapable of negotiation. Past presidents could at least engage other world leaders who were in disagreement and attempt to bring them together through thoughtful discussion, but Bush is such a simpleton that if he tried to do such a thing he'd only make things worse.

Remember how he saw into Putin's soul? How he told Abbas that God told him to attack Saddam Hussein? This "man" is so infantile as to make him a laughing stock on the world stage. But his failures as a human being go beyond embarrassing his countrymen. They exacerbate international tensions to a extremely high degree.

Bush to Blair: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

This is the degree of nuance and negotiation this guy understands?ZIP! What on earth has America wrought to entrust the leadership of their country to a blithering idiot? Most of the foreign leaders who meet with him speak better English than he does. They must be embarrassed to be seen with him
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
I don't understand what's so wrong about sitting down and TALKING with a dictator from another country. I'm not saying that we should negotiate a peace treaty with an "evil" country or even bow down to their wishes, but what's wrong with an open dialog? Laying it all out on the table, trying to see things from a different perspective instead of a Western-centric viewpoint. That's what's wrong with this fucking country -- we think that we're better than everyone else -- the overachieving know-it-all bastard that we all hated in High School.

The United States is too caught up in the "We are Right, Everyone Else is Wrong" mentality. You can't end terrorism by simply ignoring the problem or by bombing countries to death -- at least not in this day and age. How the hell can we get anywhere in this world by being closed off to things that we don't like?
The whole concept of talking with other countries as a privilege, that turned up in one of the Dem debates, blew my mind.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Heh. The Bush Admin equates dialogue with appeasement, and they're not the same, at all. And the notion that this attack wasn't aimed towards Obama is absurd.

The sad truth is that there's only one 600lb gorilla in international politics, and that's the US, particularly under the control of the neocons. And we have a nasty little friend in the Israelis.

The only appeasement that's been taking place has been towards the enraged gorilla. It just hasn't been enough to keep him happy, that's all. When bullying abroad doesn't work, it's turned inward, to bullying at home...

As for this whole song and dance about who can't be trusted, I'd suggest that the bushistas fit that mold all too well. when we insisted that the Pals have elections, Hamas won, so we reinforced Fatah, encouraged a partially failed coup attempt, then claimed that Hamas had seized control, when they merely attempted to defend their legal mandate...

A decade of Israeli occupation of southern lebanon basically created Hezbollah, and our demands that they syrians leave only strengthened their hand, as did the Israeli bombings of the whole country... we stabbed the Siniora govt in the back by resupplying the Israelis, insisting that the lebanese "disarm" Hezbollah- they can't, even if they wanted- Hezbollah is thier only defense against the Israelis...

Iran and Syria? They set out to help us in the wake of 9/11, better relations, only to be cock-blocked, vilified by the Bushies...

"Terrarists!", you say? tell it to the pals. The Bushies merely wrung their hands in mock horror as the Israelis interpreted the roadmap to peace as a declaration of open season on Palestinian leadership...

The list goes on, of course, but bluster and fearmongering still sell, at least to some, particularly in defense of the poor downtrodden israelis, who'll jump right up and invoke the "bigot!" "anti-semite" and "holocaust" trump cards to cover their own atrocities...

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY