- #36
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Wildman: In furtherance of routine talks, would you have the US reestablish an embassy in Iran?wildman said:...Finally, I state again. Talking doesn't always work. But at least it is cheap.
Wildman: In furtherance of routine talks, would you have the US reestablish an embassy in Iran?wildman said:...Finally, I state again. Talking doesn't always work. But at least it is cheap.
wildman said:Russ,
Talk can't solve everything. Obviously. However, as I said before, IT IS CHEAP. You don't lose anything by trying it.
wildman said:doesn't gain by trying to work with the Palestinians in general. And how do you know that the Germans and the French couldn't have solved their problems by talking? YOU DON'T KNOW and to imply that you do is silly.
wildman said:Tt is amazing to me how the neocons think that going straight to the most expensive solution (war) is somehow smart. You all think that we should just have big money burning exercises. I mean it is great for the execs in the company I work for. They have been burning money like crazy. But it is crazy.
wildman said:Russ answer this: Let's say you have very limited money (which believe it or not, we do have limited money). You have a leaky pipe. You can fix it yourself (risky but cheap) or you can immediately call the plumber (expensive but sure). Doesn't it make sense to try it yourself first (talk) instead of always calling the plumber (war)?
seycyrus said:Appeasement was tried with Hitler. It failed.
You are proposing that we didn't talk to Hitler enough? When do you think we should have stopped talking and actually done something?
Pick apart? Interpret? What thirteen ways are there to interpret and pick apart the statement that a triangle has four sides?Let's look at the words again and see what possible interpretations there are, since I can't imagine what interpretation I should have applied:russ_watters said:C'mon, Gokul, that's a really bad argument, and it is pretty obvious why: It is an easy word game to play where one person can use the word "enemy" (his definition for what he's describing) while saying the other person doesn't really recognize them as enemies. That's not a contradiction and it is not useful to try to pick apart the wording. Interpret! (like Bob did), what is actually meant by these statements.
1. We do not live in a world where we have no enemies."It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe," McCain said in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.
lisab said:You are confusing talk with appeasement...totally different things.
lisab said:A good way to judge if we should change our tacts when dealing with people we don't agree with: Consider how we do it now. How's it working for us? Look at where we are now in the world, after eight years of conducting ourselves using the neo-con rules.
Gokul43201 said:And now we have virtually illiterate hacks coming up with idiocy like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.htmlFirst of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.
If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.
I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .
However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.
For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . . .
excerpt of Chamberlain's address to the British people, September 27, 1938
seycyrus said:Appeasement usually involves talk. The comment under discussion was Hitler and our "failure' to talk to him "enough". At what point do you think we should have stopped talking?
Chris Matthews is illeterate? Kevin James never tried to answer the question until the end of the interview when he finally admitted that he didn't know the answer. Matthews did what it took to prevent James from evading the question.chemisttree said:Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?
Great example!
lisab said:No, no, no - you're not getting what appeasement really is. Chamberlain appeased Hilter when gave him Sudetenland (a region of Czechoslovakia) in 1938.
lisab said:Appeasement is not simply talking. To say we should not talk to people we don't agree with because "appeasement usually involves talk" is like saying that since choking to death usually involves eating, we should not eat. Ridiculous logic.
People have a very simplistic view of how WW2 began. It was a lot more complicated than nasty Hitler invaded poor little Poland.chemisttree said:Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?
Great example!
Anyone who thinks that Chamberlain did nothing wrong (because talk is CHEAP) has an unfortunate history lesson in their future.
Lesson 1. Read and understand the following:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html
Lesson 2. Learn what the phrase "Those that don't understand History are destined to repeat it," truly means.
Truly mind-boggling than anyone would find that Mathew's position on this is anything but disgusting!
Oh, I thought we were calling people 'virtually illiterate' if we didn't like them. There is no evidence that James is 'virtually illiterate' in this clip.jimmysnyder said:Chris Matthews is illeterate?
James never tried to answer the question until the end of the interview when he finally admitted that he didn't know the answer. Matthews did what it took to prevent James from evading the question.
We say to the West that you have been beaten in Palestine and the defeat has already begun. Israel will be vanquished, and all those who have supported and continue to support it will also be vanquished. America will be defeated in Iraq. The nation of Muhammad will triumph in Palestine and Iraq and on all Arab and Muslim soil. Tomorrow, our nation will rule the world; this is a fact. Tomorrow, we will rule the world.
Green's diatribe mentions that Israel is currently in negotiations with Syria on the Golan. This isn't true but that wouldn't be a first for Mark Green!
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6413332.htmlTurkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a visit to Damascus late last month. He confirmed that Syria and Israel had asked Ankara for mediation, adding that such efforts would start at a low level before bringing the leaders together if successful.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984337.htmlThe U.S. government has asked Turkey to increase efforts to advance negotiations between Israel and Syria, according to a report published by the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat on Saturday.
According to the report, the U.S. request comes in light of the recent political crisis in Lebanon, and U.S. assessments that peace between Israel and Syria will help distance the country from Hezbollah.
You mean the unofficial 'talks' through a third party? I thought it was http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BAFC32-1E08-490B-B3E3-A846D8254413.htm" but maybe not. Either way, I don't think that counts as 'dialogue'. Telling a mediator to say, "Before we talk you have to do this and that," doesn't equate to 'talks' in my mind.Art said:Israel and Syria are in dialogue with each other re a peace agreement, with Egypt acting as mediators, according to Israel, Syria and Egypt
Bush himself is beneath what we would like the dignity of the Office of the President to be if it actually had any dignity, which after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush it doesn't any more.chemisttree said:That doesn't sound beneath the dignity of the Office of the President to me.
The oppressed opposition being in the main the Muslim Brotherhood whose credo isWinding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.
"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.
Egypt had planned elections for 2005 but abandoned them because of the strong support for this group.Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
Hmm Guantanamo Bay ring a bell??"America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.
Perhaps someone should tell Bush the Palestinians had free and democratic elections but the US didn't like the results.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Air Force One with Bush returning to Washington, said there were serious peace negotiations going on in private and that she expected them to intensify in the months ahead. She said Bush inserted the wording in the speech that "I believe" the Palestinians will build a democracy, as a sign of his confidence that will happen.
My mistake, I meant the talks you now admit to but claimed were lies, were being mediated through Turkey as referenced in the links I provided. .chemisttree said:You mean the unofficial 'talks' through a third party? I thought it was http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BAFC32-1E08-490B-B3E3-A846D8254413.htm" but maybe not. Either way, I don't think that counts as 'dialogue'. Telling a mediator to say, "Before we talk you have to do this and that," doesn't equate to 'talks' in my mind.
Do you have a reference for the Egytian mediation?
ThomasT said:Bush himself is beneath what we would like the dignity of the Office of the President to be if it actually had any dignity, which after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush it doesn't any more.
ThomasT said:A particularly ironic statement is:
" ... On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies."
ThomasT said:The reason that Palestinians and Iraqis despise the United States and Israel is not at all complicated. The U.S. and Israel have stolen or destroyed their homes and their homelands and murdered their friends and relatives.
Art said:The oppressed opposition being in the main the Muslim Brotherhood whose credo is...
Egypt had planned elections for 2005 but abandoned them because of the strong support for this group.
Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt
They stood as independents in the canceled 2005 elections and were by far the best supported opposition group.chemisttree said:Just a touch-up here, Art. Bush was referring to Ayman Nour, head of the secular liberal party, Al-Ghad. I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal organization in Egypt.
That's a pretty bizarre definition!chemisttree said:Oh, I thought we were calling people 'virtually illiterate' if we didn't like them.
Okay, what do you call it if a political commentator appearing on TV to talk about a speech involving the appeasement of Hitler shows not a shred of knowledge about the Munich Treaty, the Sudetenland problem, the prevailing opinion on Versailles or anything related to what actually was talked about in 1938, by the appeasers?There is no evidence that James is 'virtually illiterate' in this clip.
It may all be true, but absolutely none of it answered the question.He actually answered it about half way through the 'interview'. James said that talking to Hitler enabled, energized and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced. "It was appeasement", "He's talking about appeasement", "He was an appeaser, Chris," he said. All true.
Yes, Matthews was being too kind to him. I think it would have been more accurate for it to have ended with James never acknowledging that he was ignorant about the subject he was appearing on TV to talk about (and that's what he went on to do with his follow up about what he didn't know.)When James finally uttered the words "I don't know..." Matthews immediately cut him off. He had his soundbite and nothing else mattered.
So were the jihadis of Afghanistan in the 80s, Ferdinand Marcos, Mao Zedong, "Dear Mr. Chairman" Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein (all of whom were "appeased" by Republican Administrations).What is to be gained by talks with the likes of these? Remember, Bush's statement was specifically aimed at negotiations with terrorists and radicals. Iran, Hezbollah and Hammas are well-described by those terms.
Winding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.
"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.
US State Dept. has been after Eygpt for this jailed parliamentarian; even the news link you post says Pres. Bush was specifically referring to a secular figure. You should retract that part.art said:Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt
Nor did the EU, who also cut off funding to the Palestinian govt. given its continued clear statements that Israel can not be allowed to exist. Again you should retract.Then this Gem Perhaps someone should tell Bush the Palestinians had free and democratic elections but the US didn't like the results.
"America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.
Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.Art said:He then added Hmm Guantanamo Bay ring a bell??
So you really do think he is virtually illiterate? That's pretty bizarre!Gokul43201 said:That's a pretty bizarre definition!
Do you need to know the history of the Munich Treaty of 1938 to know that the American Senator's statement regarding Hitler amounted to the false comfort of appeasement? This statement, made as Hitler had already gobbled up Czechoslovakia and was at that moment moving in Poland? Do you really need to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939? (it was 1938, BTW) That's just pathetic hit piece journalism.Okay, what do you call it if a political commentator appearing on TV to talk about a speech involving the appeasement of Hitler...
And you think this important, WHY? Perhaps James is not such a good political commentator. I certainly wouldn't refer to him regarding history but that is not 'illiterate'. So, why did you call him virtually illiterate again? Because he didn't know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939? That was the question, you know. "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939?" was the question. He wasn't asked, "What is meant by 'appeasement'?" Only later did Matthews correct himself and stammer, "...or 1938?" Why did Matthews ask a totally unimportant question regarding James' historical knowledge of the term 'appeasement' and how it referred to what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errr... 1938)? Anyway, that's pretty far from what I would consider to be 'virtually illiterate' so naturally I assumed that it was meant to be a pejorative....shows not a shred of knowledge about the Munich Treaty, the Sudetenland problem, the prevailing opinion on Versailles or anything related to what actually was talked about in 1938, by the appeasers?
Oh, but it did. Just not to Matthews' (or your) satisfaction. Was it more important to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errrr... 1938) or that appeasement is giving something to your adversary to keep him satisfied?It may all be true, but absolutely none of it answered the question.
He said that ""I don't know what the President (Bush) was referring to when he talked about what was being said in 1939." (errrr... 1938) You think that this meant that he didn't know why Chamberlain was an appeaser? Perhaps you believe that it is most important that the commentator not actually comment on Bush's statement but on the history of Chamberlain's utter failure as a leader and negotiator? Yeah, that's the part that's important... the history of the Sudetenland problem and the treaty that resulted in the labelling of Chamberlain as an "appeaser" and his self-described methods "appeasement". Quite histrionic, if you ask me...Yes, I think it would have been more accurate for it to have ended with James never acknowledging that he was ignorant about the subject he was appearing on TV to talk about (and that's what he went to to do with his follow up about what he didn't know.)
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what their politics are it is the principle of arbitrarily locking up people who disagree with your pov whatever that may be.mheslep said:Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.
Art said:They stood as independents in the canceled 2005 elections and were by far the best supported opposition group.
In reference to Ayman Nour you're not suggesting it's okay if Egypt suppresses some opposition groups but not others are you?? Such a view would hardly represent freedom and democracy.
mheslep said:Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.
Already answered. Read post #57mheslep said:US State Dept. has been after Eygpt for this jailed parliamentarian; even the news link you post says Pres. Bush was specifically referring to a secular figure. You should retract that part.
And this relates to my post how? I'm not saying he or anyone else has to like the result I am merely pointing out the Palestinians already carry out democratic elections which based on his comments Bush apparently isn't aware of.mheslep said:Nor did the EU, who also cut off funding to the Palestinian govt. given its continued clear statements that Israel can not be allowed to exist. Again you should retract.
You're changing the point. You clearly implied Pres. Bush's clear )and commendable) statements about Egypt locking up one of its own Parliamentarians or other democratic activists was the same thing as what is going on Guantanamo, when it clearly is not. Combatants (at least suspected) have been locked up in Gmo, and not just arbitrarily and not just because they disagree w/ 'pov'. I'd personally like to see Gmo shut down since as a POW camp it is too ambiguous to define the end of a war w/ non-state actors. None the less your comparisons are distorted.Art said:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what their politics are it is the principle of arbitrarily locking up people who disagree with your pov whatever that may be.
For a political commentator to not know some of the basic history of WWII is in itself pretty shocking, and disgraceful. But to appear on TV, knowing nothing about the subject involved and choosing not even to read up about it in order to not appear ignorant...that suggests that he either can not read, or chooses not to (maybe he is a masochist, or perhaps he thinks preparation is over-rated?).chemisttree said:So you really do think he is virtually illiterate? That's pretty bizarre!
I see it is more important to you that Chris made an error about the year of the Munich Accord than that the person talking about it didn't have a clue about what it was even about?Oh, but it did. Just not to Matthews' (or your) satisfaction. Was it more important to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errrr... 1938) or that appeasement is giving something to your adversary to keep him satisfied?
Maybe you should read my post and the link I provided before responding and so save us both a lot of wasted time. Bush never mentioned Ayman Nour. He actually saidmheslep said:You're changing the point. You clearly implied Pres. Bush's clear )and commendable) statements about Egypt locking up one of its own Parliamentarians or other democratic activists was the same thing as what is going on Guantanamo, when it clearly is not. Combatants (at least suspected) have been locked up in Gmo, and not just arbitrarily and not just because they disagree w/ 'pov'. I'd personally like to see Gmo shut down since as a POW camp it is too ambiguous to define the end of a war w/ non-state actors. None the less your comparisons are distorted.
and in Egypt the main opposition party is the Muslim Brotherhood."Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail,"