Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement"

[meme]

Their taking the mask off the Democrat party..

--------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bruce Ramsey


Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

read it all and comments.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html

 

[Onceler]

I love that Bushies don't know what appeasement means.

It's my new favorite thing.

 

[Battleborne]

They certainly do..............

I love that Bushies don't know what appeasement means.

It's my new favorite thing.

and so do you and Obama...'Appeasement: 1)to cause to subside:allay 2) pacify,conciliate;esp:to buy off by concession..............!

This is exactly what Obama is proposing while meeting with Hamas,Hezballah and Iran! They all give their support for his campaign...really telling!

 

[evince]

I still just dont get how talking is appeasement.

Why is it the right cant do two things at once?

You talk to see what they are thinking and what they will try to demand.

You then have a much better Idea how to diffuse them. It takes none of your options off the table.

It is just childishly silly to not KNOW your percieved enemy as best you can.

 

[Onceler]

and so do you and Obama...'Appeasement: 1)to cause to subside:allay 2) pacify,conciliate;esp:to buy off by concession..............!

This is exactly what Obama is proposing while meeting with Hamas,Hezballah and Iran! They all give their support for his campaign...really telling!

See that? Many righties don't even understand the basics of the English language.

This is loads of fun to watch....

 

[evince]

Talking and negociating are two different words.

They mean different things.

 

[Battleborne]

Well excuse me Loraxhole!

See that? Many righties don't even understand the basics of the English language.

This is loads of fun to watch....

are you challenging 'The Merriam-Webster Dictionary' now?...You and desh need to go back to school and pay attention this time around!

 

[evince]

I would have you go look up the words appeasement, talking and negociating.

They are all differnt words with differant meaning.

Why do you reject the most basic military tenant "KNOW YOUR ENEMY".

 

[Battleborne]

***sigh***

I would have you go look up the words appeasement, talking and negociating.

They are all differnt words with differant meaning.

Why do you reject the most basic military tenant R "KNOW YOUENEMY".

We already know the enemy desh...911 ring a bell?
and you really need to hit the community college system in LV...you are making a fool of yourself again!...Try English 101 after English for dummies!

 

[evince]

Look you simpleton, the enemy is always evolving unlike you.

 

[Battleborne]

Well desh...............

Look you simpleton, the enemy is always evolving unlike you.

Like you suggested to dillo...'put the shovel down!'

 

[evince]

hahahahahaah!


dude are you saying all you need to know about your enemy is a name?


So if you think its not important to KEEP abreast of what your enemy is thinking you are a complete fool.

I guess we may know why Bush cant win this one huh?

 

[Battleborne]

***sigh*** again!

hahahahahaah!


dude are you saying all you need to know about your enemy is a name?


So if you think its not important to KEEP abreast of what your enemy is thinking you are a complete fool.

I guess we may know why Bush cant win this one huh?

Put down the shovel...GW is not running this time around...and we are abreast of what the enemy is up to...unlike you and your ilk!

 

[Care4all]

I still just dont get how talking is appeasement.

Why is it the right cant do two things at once?

You talk to see what they are thinking and what they will try to demand.

You then have a much better Idea how to diffuse them. It takes none of your options off the table.

It is just childishly silly to not KNOW your percieved enemy as best you can.

Oh for goodness sakes!

Negotiation HAS BEEN the USA policy up until President Bush....

Reagan negotiated with Michail Gorbachev....the leader of the country that was going to blow us up with Nuclear weapons for goodness sakes....

roosevelt kept negotiations opened with Hitler...yes Hitler.

All of our presidents until this Bush administrations have ALWAYS KEPT NEGOTIATIONS opened with the enemy, and MUCH BIGGER and more threatening enemies that Iran or terrorists.

We are doing REAL GREAT under Bush's obstinate, arrogant and wrong policies, huh? NOT in my opinion!

Care

 

[Battleborne]

***sigh***

Oh for goodness sakes!

Negotiation HAS BEEN the USA policy up until President Bush....

Reagan negotiated with Michail Gorbachev....the leader of the country that was going to blow us up with Nuclear weapons for goodness sakes....

roosevelt kept negotiations opened with Hitler...yes Hitler.

All of our presidents until this Bush administrations have ALWAYS KEPT NEGOTIATIONS opened with the enemy, and MUCH BIGGER and more threatening enemies that Iran or terrorists.

We are doing REAL GREAT under Bush's obstinate, arrogant and wrong policies, huh? NOT in my opinion!

_________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

(1)Russia did not make a first strike...!
(2)Roosevelt stopped negotiating once Germanies' allay Japan made the declaration of war at Pearl Harbor!
(3) Radical Islam already made the first strike at NYC and before...and Iran is posturing and supporting alQaeda in Iraq...
You are as dense as Desh!

 

[Annie]

Oh for goodness sakes!

Negotiation HAS BEEN the USA policy up until President Bush....

Reagan negotiated with Michail Gorbachev....the leader of the country that was going to blow us up with Nuclear weapons for goodness sakes....

roosevelt kept negotiations opened with Hitler...yes Hitler.

All of our presidents until this Bush administrations have ALWAYS KEPT NEGOTIATIONS opened with the enemy, and MUCH BIGGER and more threatening enemies that Iran or terrorists.

We are doing REAL GREAT under Bush's obstinate, arrogant and wrong policies, huh? NOT in my opinion!

Care

Care, where has this administration NOT been negotiating where you think they should? Prior to executives meeting and conditions set forth, it's at the State Department level and the foreign corresponding department that meet and negotiate. Obama said he'd skip any preconditions and meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad, Syria's al Asad, etc. You think that's a good plan?

 

[evince]

Talking and negociating have two differnt meanings.

You can talk to someone to find out if negociating is even going to be on the table.

Talking takes none of your options away and teaches you much about a percieved enemy.

 

[Annie]

Talking and negociating have two differnt meanings.

You can talk to someone to find out if negociating is even going to be on the table.

Talking takes none of your options away and teaches you much about a percieved enemy.

I don't know whether or not your post was in response to mine, but if it was, can you answer the questions I posed to Care?

 

[Care4all]

Care, where has this administration NOT been negotiating where you think they should? Prior to executives meeting and conditions set forth, it's at the State Department level and the foreign corresponding department that meet and negotiate. Obama said he'd skip any preconditions and meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad, Syria's al Asad, etc. You think that's a good plan?

kathianne, i think this administration has not performed well with their diplomatic duties and responsibilities.

their policies are cowardlike, not willing to ever face an issue, opponent, or enemy face to face, but always behind rhetoric, it's shallow, and is not working imo.

and i am truely not certain what it would take, to make things in the world move in a more positive direction, but i do know that i would not rule out a face to face dealing with my enemy.....if only for the cliche alone, of stay close to your friends and even closer to your enemy.

this administration has not tried to ''know'' their enemy, and have made some very arrogant and faulty decisions that only ended up harming us, like ''we will be treated as liberators in iraq....heros'', this arrogant mindset was faulty because they did not know their enemy imo.

care

 

[Annie]

kathianne, i think this administration has not performed well with their diplomatic duties and responsibilities.

their policies are cowardlike, not willing to ever face an issue, opponent, or enemy face to face, but always behind rhetoric, it's shallow, and is not working imo.

and i am truely not certain what it would take, to make things in the world move in a more positive direction, but i do know that i would not rule out a face to face dealing with my enemy.....if only for the cliche alone, of stay close to your friends and even closer to your enemy.

this administration has not tried to ''know'' their enemy, and have made some very arrogant and faulty decisions that only ended up harming us, like ''we will be treated as liberators in iraq....heros'', this arrogant mindset was faulty because they did not know their enemy imo.

care

I'm not trying to be contrary, but can you be specific?