Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Susan, check out the breaking news--so far, CNN and ABC are just saying Kennedy rushed to hospital, but FOX saying stroke like conditions...
So talking is appeasement? Reagen didn't think so. Nixon didn't think so. I think Bush and McCain are scared to man up and face these guys and tell them face to face what we think. Yes, scared.
So, just what would YOU say to them, Don? What kind of "talk" do you think would be effective?
I find it hilarious BHO is so thin-skinned and sennnnnnnnnnnsitive he immediately thought it was "all about him". Could have been about Carter and his recent trip to "talk" to tyrants--we see how effective he's been, right? Just a laughing stock for the ME from his administration on, a perfect example to them of "American weakness".
Thugs and tyrants don't understand "talk" and view it as weakness. The ONLY they respect is action.
Maybe start with telling the Iranians to stop supporting terror in Iraq? But we should have the guts to do it face to face, not this sissy way. How about telling Ahmadinejad that we will not allow them to have nukes but that if they give up their nuclear ambitions we talk about lifting sanctions. This needs to be done FACE TO FACE, not the cowards way. It worked for Nixon with red China, it worked for Reagen against the Soviets.
It's been done already Don--on the floor of the UN and as you say, face to face. They just thumbed their noses and increased their activities. Next?
The floor of the UN? LMAO, that's not face to face. Bush needs to look Ahmadinejad straight in the eye. Not doing that is a sign of weakness in their eyes. And I agree, it IS weakness. What are Bush and McCain afraid of? Reagen sat straight across from Gobachev and looked him in the eye and wasn't afraid to do so and the Soviets saw his strength and caved in. We look like weaklings for refusing to talk!!
I agree we need to act as Reagan did with thugs. However, as long as we're members of the UN (something I don't agree with at all and wish we were out of), and as long as the libs are screeching over every little thing we DO, it's not going to happen. The libs are NEVER happy or satisfied--we follow the UN rules and they screech why aren't we doing more. We do what we need to do and they screech it's illegal (the war--after all the "talk" that went beforehand and sanctions et al).
In other words, a rock and a hard place. And since the media is driven by its lib agenda, how do you propose this happen? For example--last week, BHO commented about 57 states. Ok, he's exhausted, we all know that. So he was given a pass by the MSM and those of us pointing it out were ridiculed for pointing it out.
On the other hand, had a conservative made such an error, we'd be hearing about it for years afterward. Take note of all the "Bushisms" if you disagree. And how about all the comments and snide remarks about "cowboy diplomacy"?
So how do you propose to gag the media so the real work can get done? Another example, as mentioned in the post--Pelosi's blatant violation of the Logan Act in meeting with Syria and totally screwing up the message of Israel. A free pass by the media. Carter--same thing.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I think underneath we agree on quite a bit, but I'm genuinely interested.
How about showing me the proof in the pudding? All of you who support McCain and Bush's foreign policy, please show me how well that has worked for these United States over the last eight years. Are we looked upon favorably in the international community? Are we respected and admired as leaders of the free world?
Did Iran stop suporting terrorists? Did North Korea stop its production of nuclear materials? Has anything good come out of Bush's foreign policy decisions? Do we have less enemies in the world? Did it help us find Bin Laden? Tell me that and maybe then you can convince me that we do not need change in FP.
Otherwise, how can we keep doing the same things and expect different results. Isn't that the definition of insanity?
Whether we like it or not, whether we recognize them or not, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Castro and other who we just don't like or approve of are LEADERS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS, just like GWB. As a leader of a sovereign nation, why would they want to speak directly with anyone less than another leader in the same capacity.
So for the person who talks about American weakness, how weak is to say that "He is not playing fair, so I won't go over the rules with him until he starts playing fair again"? And how weak do you have to be to go complaining to another nation and make disparaging remarks, rather than having a face to face discussion with someone you disagree with?
Why don't you answer the questions I posed to Don? Or do you think just ranting is going to accomplish any kind of discussion here? Carter is the one who fucked up Iran and Korea, not Bush--so get that straight now.
Now answer the questions if you want discussion.
Now that's a guilty man talking. President Bush was referring to Dhimmi Carter not Barack Hussein Obama. But if the shoe fits....
Yep, Katie--what's the old saying? He doth protest too much? How about those that continually accuse YOU of something are probably guilty of what they're accusing you of? Or how about what are you hiding that you feel the need to hysterically defend yourself when no one even mentioned your name? Shall we call him Cinderfella for the shoe fitting?
Lets look at a simple fact, shall we?
In 1942, Obamas grandfather was marching with Patton in Europe. Bushs grandfather Prescott, was having his assets seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act because of his financial involvement with the Third Reich.
What does that have to do with the post? Get on topic Duncan, I'm not in the mood for bullshit today.
I LOVE THIS BIG SHIP CALLED AMERICA / THE PROBLEM IS WHO'S AT THE HELM
By scorpi2000 - May 17th, 2008 at 5:55 pm EDT
Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
By scorpi2000 - May 17th, 2008 at 1:07 am EDT Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
I love this big ship we all are sailing in.
The big ship called America.
Best ship in the World.
But those republican guys, who have been at the helm for the past 8 years, have steered us all in the wrong direction.
Half of the passengers saw the storm in front of us years ago, while the other half just blindly trusted their lead.
They kept telling everybody theres gold just beyond the horizon, dont worry trust us.
Everyone that tried to say somthing got labeled a traitor, and accused of hating the great ship America.
The other ships warned them not to go in this direction years ago too, they got told the same thing.
Weve lost over 4000 good men, and are runnig low on rashions.
Its going to take forever to get us back into calm waters.
I think its time to make them walk the plank, so we can turn this ship around, before we all go down.
Its time for liberals to take the helm.
OBAMA 08
by scorpi2000 May 17, 2008 at 12:25 am
by scorpi2000 May 17, 2008 at 12:36 am
Oh please--you can't even figure out how to comment properly without cutting and pasting.
Talk to me about our troops who volunteered to fight your and my rights after you stop the slaughter of 4000 babies per day who didn't choose to be slaughtered. Until then, STFU and STFD.
Oh, and the next post better be posted properly according to the format laid out AND better be on topic or you WON'T be posting here. We clear?
Bush's statements on appeasement were the best words I've heard come out of his mouth in quite awhile. I'm no fan. But Obamama's reaction was just too comical---gosh, I wish Mccain was somebody I could vote for against him. I want us out of Iraq/Afganis just because I don't think one American life is worth losing over those people who are unable to take care of things themselves. We should take some of their oil to compensate for our time and treasure. And then we provide Israel with our support for whatever they feel they need to do to protect themselves.
YOU HAVE TO BE TRUSTED AND RESPECTED TO NEGOTIATE PEACE
I dont see how anyone can come to the conclusion that
its a bad idea to try diplomacy.
Isnt that how Reagan got Russia to stand down after years of the cold war thing.
Hum, ended the war without firing a shot.
Can’t get any better than that.
That by itself,should prove alot
The right person can make a big differece.
It doesnt matter if its Democratic or Republican its who’s doing the talking.
I can see why no one trusts or responds to the Bush distort the truth type of diplomacy.
BUSH AND HIS BUDDIES ARE NOT TRUSTED ENOUGH TO PULL OFF THIS TYPE OF DIPLOMACY.
THE WHOLE WORLD HAS BEEN WATCHING.
OBAMA 08
SOMEONE OUR ENIMIES WOULD TRUST AND RESPECT IN A SERIOUS CONVERSATION ABOUT PEACE.
THANKS
SCORPI2000
I like the way you think Shannon, and I'm all for being repaid for doing the job we've done--and I like the idea of if there's no money, then dammit, take it in oil.
The only reason our enemies would "trust" him is because he's a wimpy assed, spineless yellow-bellied noodle. That's why they're supporting him. And they're laughing up their sleeves at him as well. He's far from respected by the ME, he's seen as an easily overcome weakling full of hot air. Go study your islam--Obama sucks rocks and can't do the job. He's too seeeeeeennnnnnsitive.
For Katie and Beth, with all due respect you still did not answer my questions. How did Bush's policy's change anything? How have they helped our standing in the world? And Miss Beth you must be sadly disillusioned to think that your president does not have anything to do with that. If Carter did screw up in Iran and NK, what did Bush do that helped? Again give me the policies that have made our relationships with these countries better. Give me the proof. Have none? I didn't think so and this is exactly why things will stay the same unless we do get Barack in office. Because the Republican party would rather sit and play the blame game than actually do something about it.
What the two of you fail to understand is that what Bush did was underhanded and weakminded. He called out American leaders on foreign soil. If President Obama is going to have respect on the world stage, then he had to say something and it is foolish of all of you who sit back and say that he should just do nothing.
And Miss Beth as far as what he would say to them, he could start the conversation of with something like: "I know we have not had the best relationship in the past. But I would like to work with you and your leaders to democratically improve the relationship with us and other leaders around the world."
How is that for starters? Or is this "action" that you speak of working for us? Once again, do we have fewer enemies since this President was elected? Or do we have more, both at home and abroad?
Oh and by the way Mrs. Beth, you are th only one on this page who seems to be ranting, my initial posting was both thought provoking, on topic and action motivated. So, now you answer the questions I have asked, or are you only good at complaining? What is your position on foreing policy since you seem to be so much more enlightened than the rest of us?
I believe you were asked to answer the questions I posed to Don. I've said this on other threads today--I'm in no mood for crap or spin. Don't come here and demand we answer questions, you answer the questions and back up what you say.
He's not president yet and the way he's going, he won't be. No one respects a weakling. The world stage respected Reagan because he had the maturity to back up what he said--he meant what he said and "they" knew it. When you have someone who is so thin skinned they take everything personally, there is no respect there. Nor is there respect for someone who changes his story every five seconds a la the Wright issue.
As for the world stage, there's a lot more respect than you seem to think. To do what you would like is disrespectful of our troops and shows us to be weak and we can't afford that after Vietnam.
Not all problems in this world are Bush's fault. Criticism is fine, but to continue to blindly spin every single last problem in existence is his fault is plain stupidity and has a name--BDS. Get over it.
Republicans win wars--dems whine and surrender. They'll start them, they'll authorize them, but they won't finish them. And because of their actions, we are seen as a paper tiger and that is NOT GWB's fault. That fault lies squarely with the dems and in their laps.
Trisha, you seem to be under the impression that this is your blog. QWE set the tone, we set the topic and if you don't like it, start your own blog.
Your post was NOT thought provoking NOR relevant to the topic at hand...so much for YOUR objectivity.
Stick to the topic OF the post or find a post that better matches your rants.
Clear?
Night everyone, see ya'll tomorrow.
Beth it is all yours, have fun.
Imagine...it would make a great SNL skit:
"Oh, Osama...can't we all just get along? I hope we can be friends."
"Oh, Obama..."
ROTFLMAO Shannon!
I have to question the motive and logic of anyone that would rather fight first and talk about it later.
Open discussion first can save alot of lives .
Maybe ours. Maybe theirs.
What y'all don't seem to understand--either you've forgotten, or you chose not to listen--is we HAVE been talking. Since 1979 to Iran. How much more talk do you want? Why is it so difficult for you to understand these people don't want to talk, they have stated, quite clearly, they want to obliterate the United States, democracy and Israel. What part of that don't you understand?
If it was going to work, it would have by now. It hasn't. How much more "talk" do you want? Another few decades of stalemate? While they build their capabilities?
We continually ask this question of appeasers who just want to talk and not one, NOT ONE has answered the question, what part of what they say do you not understand?
Ok miss Beth, lets say because we can, and have the ability to, blow them off the map.
what do you think will happen then.
Will our problems go away or will we start world war three. causing millions more to die.
Can you answer the question I posed instead of dancing around it? What part of we've been talking for 29 years now is not understood? What part of "we want to destroy you and Israel" is not understood?
We have 2 choices .
more dilpomacy with somone else doing the negotiating, or war.
Oh, if you choose war I think you would be the perfect one to put on the front lines.
Actually, Carl, I HAVE been on the front lines, and would be there today if they would have me. However, in my 50s, I am told I am not the same fighting man I was in Vietnam.
You are too young to make such simplistic statements, son.
Im 52 my angry brother, and have learned from the exsperience of the past. your exsperience.
and many stories from my friends who lived thru it.
so. let me exsplain more diplomacy.
We already know we can win this without risking another life ,your sons or mine. we have the capabilities.
what ever our objective is.
We have the biggest stick at this point.
We dont have to go war or destroy them and make more enemies to achieve our objective.
diplomacy my proud American, should be tried until there is literally no time or choice to do any thing else.
As usual, another one who can't face reality and would rather spin than answer a question.
Here's the point--we're past WWIII--ever heard of the Cold War? We're in WWIV right now. Now, we can either go nagasaki and end the damn thing or it will continue to escalate until the entire ME has nukes instead of the few countries who do.
Since you obviously have no knowledge of the world, Carl, I suggest you run away to Canada where you'll be safe--or better yet, France, with the rest of the cowards or Spain with the rest of the appeasers--who talked, gave in and still got the shit pounded out of them.
Bu-Bye little boy. Run along now.
Still haven't answered the questions.
What I just said is clearly no spin, and Im not afraid of any thing that walks this Earth.
What actualy is this Question thats not being answerd for you.
These questions which were clearly posted above--obviously you didn't read them:
What part of we've been talking for 29 years now is not understood? What part of "we want to destroy you and Israel" is not understood?
I undewrstand that if that is the Question and I think ive answered it .
So tell me what is your answer to the Question.
And what you say will let me know if you are some youngster with nothing else to do or some shell shocked vet who is a victom of what were talking about.
No, you have not answered it. Not once have you addressed the fact these people have a stated objective of total annihilation of us. Not once.
And yes, I did give you my position.
Go back and read the answers you have been given.
Oh, and guess what? This isn't your blog--you don't get to call the shots. I am not a vet, but I am quite sure the vets in my family would have plenty to say since some have been Undersecretary of Defense and Medal of Honor recipients, as well as writing several strategic tomes. So get off your high horse, quit your damned spinning with your non-answers or leave.
We clear?
Come on Miss Beth lets finish this conversation without going to war.
So should we pull out the big stuuff and end this or negotiate
You're right Carl--you're not capable of answering a question and you've made it clear for all to see. You refuse to even fully read a comment. Yet, you want to pull this crap:
And what you say will let me know if you are some youngster with nothing else to do or some shell shocked vet who is a victom of what were talking about.
or this:
Oh, if you choose war I think you would be the perfect one to put on the front lines.
You're done.
No I dont choose war and Ive visted your sight I mean no offense ,But what were doing now I concider diplomacy.
We went to war in Iraq and found he Was selling woff tickets . Im responding to the blogs im reading . Maybe were missing each other in the conversation Help me to understand your point.
lets skip to the chase.I dont care if its republican or democrate. Or who solves the problem.
I dont want to see any more war victoms because nobody wanted to be realistic .I dont agree with this Appease thing. Bad choice of words. I dont see anybody trying to appease anybody especialy you and I. except bush is trying to appease the republican voters with hype. about obamas intent ,
You don't give republican voters much credit for having brains, do you?
We are in WWIV. Iran is on the verge of gaining nuclear capability. What do you think they'll do with it?
Sorry went to anoiher sight .
I concider this like vietnam its not a world war yet.
I think Iran got spooked when we went into Iraq.
Also I think Iran got big headed after we accidently took out one of their obsticles Irag,.Sadam.Who we set up to be a block .
big mistake. Now we got a bigger problems.
If we take them out, we create bigger problems.
Thats why russias arming up.
The Oil supply.
Someone accidently, upset the delicate balance of power in that region.
US.
Sombody needs to do somthing fast.
Isreal will be colateral damage compared to what will happen if things jump off.
china?
russia?
saudi arrabia ?
our oil supply?
Get the picture?
Either somebody starts doing some fast talking. or your vision of ww3
and 4 will be a reality.
Lets keep in touch i understand where youre comin from.
I think theirs still time for diplomacy.
But thats just my opinion.
scorpi2000 aka carl
War or Diplomacy take your pick.
Im not mad at you.
Diplomacy does one thing and one thing only. It delays the inevitable. I am a warrior having seen combat and we grow weary of fighting wars that diplomats create.
Diplomats are Wimplomats plain and simple.
A sane individual knows that idiots like those that run countries like Iran and Iraq cannot be "talked to"...period. To say they can be is a Clear and Present Danger and idiots that espouse such idiocy have no clues and should remain in their closets never to be heard from.
hEY MISS BETH
CHECK OUT CNN, OUT OF GAS
In addition, Obama is clueless and his entire National service to this nation adds up to 143 days as a US Senator with the remaining time running for President on the publics' penny. What a moronic dufus he is indeed.
I say go to war with the diplomats before they put your necks on the line.
Now who actualy got us into this quagmire?
And lets not shoot the messenger.
And now that were in it.
Is going to war the only solution?
Somebody had 8 years and a blank check.
now let me see,
who else can we blame for risking our lives.
well we got.
johnson
carter
nixon
Reagon
Bush 1 4yrs
Clinton 8yrs
Bush2 8yrs
Hey Im not biased.
which one or did all play a roll in our direction
And I feel who ever is President next has to fix this mess.Not make it worse.
So far the above aint workin.
were gettin in deeper.
Since I wasn't alive when this happened, when was the Shah put into power and by whom? That's who started the mess in the ME. It was then exacerbated by the completely inept Carter; Clinton did his fair share when he had not one, not two but THREE chances to get OBL and was too busy playing golf and chewing out his advisors for interrupting his game to give the order and he left the mess for Bush2. Bush1 had his hands tied by the UN and he wasn't ALLOWED BY THE UN to finish the job. So, where DO you lay the blame? Once again, the repubs wanted to finish the war at the beginning but the diplomats wouldn't let him. The dems who had a chance to do something about it were incapabale of doing so or had more important things on their mind like their golf score.
Who brought our boys home in shame from Vietnam? Hm? The dems. We didn't lose one combat--NOT ONE. We lost with the wimps talking here on the home front, who brought the boys home in shame and ruined our reputation as a force to be reckoned with overseas. We've been fighting the "paper tiger" epithet since then.
If it takes bombing the hell out of Iran to get the point across, then so be it. Iran is the clear and present danger, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, when is it going to sink in we are not at war with a COUNTRY--we are at war with a deadly societal ideology. If you visited my site as you say you did, you saw the educational series' published there and the dangers of islam. It is not a religion. It is a way of life.
The time for talk is over. Talk got us here. Talk WON'T get us out and to pull our troops as they were pulled in Vietnam will be the nail in the coffin. If you served as you say you did, you know this.
Now, it's after 1 am and I'm going to bed. It has been explained every which way it can be explained. If it's still not clear, there is nothing that will make it clear for you.
You can't teach a dumbass libtard anything because they are brain dead morons.
TRISHA- Your questions were answered, your not liking the answers given is irrelevant. I will not see the thread be taken around in circles because you are incapable of reading simple English.
You don't like Beth's answers, simple solution, the little X in the top right hand corner of the window.
Go elsewhere.
Edited By Siteowner
Trisha...another "sensitive" moonbat moron. Imagine that.
Idiot.
Let's see...we have a loon in Persia telling all who have ears that his goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. To do that to the extent he talks about, he needs nuclear weapons. Therefore, he will work until he has the nukes ready. He has made no bones about it. This is an easy one. However, unless we are willing to nuke Iran, my suggestion would be to end every penny that goes into the entire region (including Muslim African states, humane aide, bases, every fricking penny) and give most of those funds to Israel to be used for their protection. The rest would be used to take over Mexican oil and refineries and get them working to capacity asap. I'd be willing to have rationed gas for the interim between cutting off all relations with those Mid East wackos and getting oil closer to home.
Welcome to Wake up America Shannon. Good angle you have there and I agree, Israel must be protected at all costs because if anyone thinks that the madman from Iran will stop after attacking them, then they are as delusional as the lunatic is.
I agree trisha Ive tried to be as civil as possible
these are the type of personalities that will start the next world war.
I don't think diplomacy is the answer...it usually isn't when dealing with people who have an agenda outside of Western Civilization. However, I don't like the idea of losing American life because of those people. Again, I would like to see us pull out of the region---men AND money AND "aide"---let them take care of themselve. And we can focus on what we need to do. This is an alternative to appeasement or bombing. Neither dems nor repubs seem to be able to think outside the box---especially when they're spending MY money.
Thats close to what im thinking Shannon.
My definition of diplomacy is doing everything you can to stop or divert a conflict before it ends in people killing themselves.or having to resort to wipping out a people, or culture. I concider what bush 1 did as diplomacy. he did everthing to stop sudam from taking over Kuwait without starting a world war.
The oil. most of the wars in that area are based on outside countries trying to protect their interest in the oil they need to fuel their countries.The arabs are fighting to maintain the control of the oil thats on their land and thier land. everyone else is fghting and or jockying for position to maintain their own oil supply.If it wasnt for the Oil in that region those Arab countries woulnt be worth the risk of so many lives and efforts.
China Russia America Europe the big players. I think the threat to Isreal Is not the main issue in this whole conflict over their.
Those big players are using the small players as pawns in the big picture.
ruusia supplying arms to one side the US supplying arms to the other. china and europe doing the same.The Arabs in the middle happy to recieve. help from our compitition.
If we spend our energies developing a new and better energy source we may have a chance to avoid a ww3 or 4 and dont forget they have been fighting each other for eons.
We need to develope a new energy source like our lives depended on it.
Our reasoning behind it may be slightly different, Scorpi, but in the end the action is the same. Take our toys home and play there. I'm tired of our govt using my money and my people to jockey for power and play games with a culture that is inherently opposed to Western Civilization and can't be reasoned with because they do not think the same way as we do.
Shannon, That is the most accurate and dead on logical thing ive heard from this post.
This way of thinking can save our future and our childrens children.
Id vote for you.
Your clrear logical way of anylizing the situation is what we need leading us today.
You may not agree but the only one comming close to this is Obama.
oh, And us.
You're right...I don't see Obama as the answer or even close. He's just another politician. There is nothing different about him besides his skin color. Not enough for me.
Unfortunately, at this point there is nobody I believe I could cast a vote for.
Anyone that enters the race to be president is forced to become a politician to defend themselves from the politician game.
They must defend themselves from media assasination attempts.
Commenting by HaloScan
