Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement"

[Care4all]

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

it was in my last paragraph, i gave an example of not knowing and not willing to know their enemies....it lead to a war, for no imminent reason, and beliefs that it would be an easy slam dunk, with iraqi oil monies to pay for it....

and yes, not trying with Iran and syria and lebbanon as they did seem to do with egypt. and ignoring the china build up of military problem and also not wanting one on one talks for the first few years in office...

this administration has had some of the worst foreign policy/diplomacy in my lifetime!

 

[Annie]

it was in my last paragraph, i gave an example of not knowing and not willing to know their enemies....it lead to a war, for no imminent reason, and beliefs that it would be an easy slam dunk, with iraqi oil monies to pay for it....

and yes, not trying with Iran and syria and lebbanon as they did seem to do with egypt. and ignoring the china build up of military problem and also not wanting one on one talks for the first few years in office...

this administration has had some of the worst foreign policy/diplomacy in my lifetime!

Well, I've yet to find an issue where diplomacy wasn't on the agenda. You may know something I don't, wish you would share it.

 

[charver]

Well, I've yet to find an issue where diplomacy wasn't on the agenda. You may know something I don't, wish you would share it.

You're probably correct.

I cannot believe that some element of the US government, as well as every other government in the world, has not got some back door communication with Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organisations. (AQ is a little different as there is no single aim which could possibly be complied with even if we desired it)

The idiocy lies in the people who happily lap up the thought that the US is too good, too principled, to talk to these evil doers, who at various points in time have been the recipients of US funding.

 

[Annie]

it was in my last paragraph, i gave an example of not knowing and not willing to know their enemies....it lead to a war, for no imminent reason, and beliefs that it would be an easy slam dunk, with iraqi oil monies to pay for it....

and yes, not trying with Iran and syria and lebbanon as they did seem to do with egypt. and ignoring the china build up of military problem and also not wanting one on one talks for the first few years in office...

this administration has had some of the worst foreign policy/diplomacy in my lifetime!

As Charver said just after you, to think that the attempts towards diplomacy or actual diplomacy are not taking place, would be ridiculous. As for Iraq, point was made hours ago, there were over 10 years of diplomacy, followed by intense negotiations for 15 months. It failed.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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

Oncie's right. The conservatives, even when you post the definition of "appeasement" in front of them. Don't understand what the term means.

I'll put it to them in language they can understand.

If there trying to tell me that simply talking or negotiating is making a concesion, then there full of shit.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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!

No you are. You have failed to make a case that Iran is a clear and present danger to our national security. The policy of "preemption" is a failed policy just as appeasement was for the British.

Negotiating can take many forms. As with the Soviets, the communication of opposition to their policies backed up by the threat of force.

No one is offering to give Iran Czhecoslavakia.

 

[Cypress]

No you are. You have failed to make a case that Iran is a clear and present danger to our national security. The policy of "preemption" is a failed policy just as appeasement was for the British.

Negotiating can take many forms. As with the Soviets, the communication of opposition to their policies backed up by the threat of force.

No one is offering to give Iran Czhecoslavakia.

Willie is willfully and knowingly distorting the definition of appeasement.

Either that, or he's a complete moron, which is a substantial possibility.

Talking is not appeasement.

Trading arms illegally to Iran, in exchange for hostages is appeasement. Reagan is the poster child for appeasement.