Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Political Opinions & Beliefs


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2008, 05:28 PM
Fear-And-Loathing's Avatar
Fear-And-Loathing Fear-And-Loathing is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lancaster baby, that's right!!!!
Age: 19
Posts: 1,527
usa uk england
Fear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 9,098
Default If you want war with Iran, vote Democrat!

Quote:
By JOHN MILLER, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 17, 6:45 AM ET


BOISE, Idaho - Being dead since 1940 hasn't kept Idaho U.S. Sen. William Borah from being inserted squarely into 2008 presidential politics after Democratic candidate Barack Obama took issue with President Bush's borrowing of a quote from Borah.

In a speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset, Bush mentioned the president of Iran, and said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Bush then recalled a comment attributed to Borah in 1939 following Germany's invasion of Poland.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939," Bush told Israeli lawmakers, "an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Obama has said he would pursue talks with Iran without insisting on "preconditions" that could prompt Iranian leaders to spurn the request.

The comments have touched off back-and-forth salvos from the various camps, with Obama lashing out at President Bush and at Republican presidential rival John McCain for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in intimating the Democratic presidential hopeful would be soft on terrorists.

Idaho historians and academics say this business of dusting off Borah's words illustrates the continuing resonance of Idaho's longest-serving U.S. senator, the effectiveness of simple imagery in this blitzkrieg age of 24-hour news and the phenomenon of combining history and hindsight to make a potent political point.

"Trying to draw analogies from the past is something used a lot by political candidates," said Adam Sowards, a history professor at the University of Idaho, where the William Edgar Borah Outlawry of War Foundation was founded in 1929. Sowards adds such efforts often make him cringe.

"There's a common saying, 'History always repeats itself,' " Sowards said. "Historians don't like that saying, because the context is always changing. It's never the exact same situation."

Bush isn't the first to use the comments by Borah, who was himself a contender for president in 1936.

In a Time magazine article in August 2006, writer Brendan Nyhan noted the very same reference had also been used by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Sowards described Borah as something of an early 20th-century version of McCain for a maverick streak that included not endorsing fellow Republican Herbert Hoover for president in 1932.

In the process, Borah transcended provincial Idaho politics during his six U.S. Senate terms. He spent eight years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and fought President Woodrow Wilson over the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I and the League of Nation's "entangling alliances" with Europe in the wake of that war.

Knowing today that no amount of talking by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Borah or anybody else could have dissuaded Hitler from trying to expand his empire makes for convenient but nonetheless powerful symbolism for politicians like Bush as they attempt to frame the presidential debate on ongoing tensions with Iran.

The Borah reference "got across exactly what he (Bush) wanted to get across," said Bill Smith, director of The Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution at the University of Idaho, which runs the annual Borah Symposium lecture at the Moscow, Idaho, school.

It makes political sense, but making Borah and his 1939 comments the poster child for foolhardy Nazi appeasement, then connecting the dots to the current presidential race, is a dicey intellectual proposition.

That's because Borah was a complex figure, Smith said — a Republican isolationist who supported some of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era programs.

"Picking a spot in history and saying, 'This is what this guy stands for' is very difficult," Smith said. "Borah, like a lot of historical figures, has different historical legacies. All legacies are complicated."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/..._idaho_senator

Bush was indirectly arguing recently that Obama wants to appease Iran like Chamberlain did with Germany in the late 1930's. The funny thing about this is that the Republicans were not the ones wanting to fight Hitler (as this article shows) but rather the Democrats. The Democrats are the historical interventionists and I think they would be more likely to go to war with Iran. The GOP is not the interventionist party, it never has been. Republicans opposed Americans entry into both World Wars. Whose to say the 'Hawks' won't break away from the party line and go against a possible future war with Iran under a Democrat president in 2009?
__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.

You and I must fight to survive
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2008, 05:53 PM
KOD's Avatar
KOD KOD is offline
Correspondent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 344
KOD is on a distinguished road
Credits: 2,112
Default

Judging by this post above and others you placed on other threads, it seems as if you have been in a bubble somewhere for the last few decades (assuming, of course, that you are old enough.............doubtful). Democrats would never go to war with Iran. We were coerced into supporting Republican determination to retaliate after 9/11..............against our better judgement, but for the sake of staying politically viable at the time. When we expand our majority in Congress and resume the Presidency this November, we can safely denounce American military activity and return them to the temporary police force duty we usually occupy their time with.

For over a generation, Democrats have supported peace at all cost, deeming war unnecessary under any conditions. What history books have you been reading, and what Democratic presidential candidate have you heard vowing to use military action anywhere?

Last edited by KOD; 05-17-2008 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2008, 06:14 PM
Fear-And-Loathing's Avatar
Fear-And-Loathing Fear-And-Loathing is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lancaster baby, that's right!!!!
Age: 19
Posts: 1,527
usa uk england
Fear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 9,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KOD View Post
Judging by this post above and others you placed on other threads, it seems as if you have been in a bubble somewhere for the last few decades (assuming, of course, that you are old enough.............doubtful). Democrats would never go to war with Iran. We were coerced into supporting Republican determination to retaliate after 9/11..............against our better judgement, but for the sake of staying politically viable at the time. When we expand our majority in Congress and resume the Presidency this November, we can safely denounce American military activity and return them to the temporary police force duty we usually occupy their time with.

For over a generation, Democrats have supported peace at all cost, deeming war unnecessary under any conditions. What history books have you been reading, and what Democratic presidential candidate have you heard vowing to use military action anywhere?
Oh dear. Look's like we have a 1984 person already in the making!!!

I'm off to bed now, but rest assured I'll show you some interesting things like voting records etc etc tomorrow.
__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.

You and I must fight to survive
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2008, 09:01 PM
eellison eellison is offline
Correspondent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 380
eellison has a spectacular aura abouteellison has a spectacular aura abouteellison has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 2,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear-And-Loathing View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/..._idaho_senator

Bush was indirectly arguing recently that Obama wants to appease Iran like Chamberlain did with Germany in the late 1930's. The funny thing about this is that the Republicans were not the ones wanting to fight Hitler (as this article shows) but rather the Democrats. The Democrats are the historical interventionists and I think they would be more likely to go to war with Iran. The GOP is not the interventionist party, it never has been. Republicans opposed Americans entry into both World Wars. Whose to say the 'Hawks' won't break away from the party line and go against a possible future war with Iran under a Democrat president in 2009?
Yeah, it reads like more BS from the right. The fear mongering is ridiculous. I am sick and tire of your contradictions. First, Condi Rice and the Bush Admin. wants to communicate with Hamas. The Bush administration and the Republican party attacks Obama for wanting to talk to them.

But the Reagan administration ended the cold war by talking to their enemy, the Russians. The Russians have enough nukes to char the U.S. so many times over. John Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis not by bombing, killing, or destroying in the way that Bush did, but by talking to our enemies. Negotiation is not what cause Nazi to become stronger. It was isolationism. This is why the current Republican Party needs to become extinct. The Democrats will incorporate some conservative ideas with our ideas, and will become a stronger party. We will move toward the middle to keep you out of power for good reason. The Republican ideas are noble, but the unethical behavior is on acceptable. The lying, spinning, doing every thing to succeed is what I hate most about the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party stay pretty much on issue unless the Republican Party attacks with Republican weak facts, unsubstantiated facts, and facts with holes in them.

Last edited by eellison; 05-17-2008 at 09:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2008, 09:20 PM
ABoyNamedSue's Avatar
ABoyNamedSue ABoyNamedSue is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In Republic of the United States of America
Age: 38
Posts: 4,161
fiji de saxony
ABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond reputeABoyNamedSue has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 8,343
Default

Of COURSE we will not have war with Iran, if a socialis..err..democrat is in the White House. Everyone knows that under democratic leadership, we will just cower, with our tails between our legs. Appeasement will be an understatement, once Obama surrenders to anyone who dare point a gun to the United States. We will be the new "France."
__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 12:33 AM
Daybreaker's Avatar
Daybreaker Daybreaker is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,209
Daybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud ofDaybreaker has much to be proud of
Credits: 10,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABoyNamedSue View Post
Of COURSE we will not have war with Iran, if a socialis..err..democrat is in the White House. Everyone knows that under democratic leadership, we will just cower, with our tails between our legs. Appeasement will be an understatement, once Obama surrenders to anyone who dare point a gun to the United States. We will be the new "France."
Do you actually know any Democrats? I mean, personally? What makes you think they would be as passive as you describe? The way you're talking doesn't sound like any likely American administration.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 08:27 AM
Fear-And-Loathing's Avatar
Fear-And-Loathing Fear-And-Loathing is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lancaster baby, that's right!!!!
Age: 19
Posts: 1,527
usa uk england
Fear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to beholdFear-And-Loathing is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 9,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eellison View Post
Yeah, it reads like more BS from the right. The fear mongering is ridiculous. I am sick and tire of your contradictions. First, Condi Rice and the Bush Admin. wants to communicate with Hamas. The Bush administration and the Republican party attacks Obama for wanting to talk to them.

But the Reagan administration ended the cold war by talking to their enemy, the Russians. The Russians have enough nukes to char the U.S. so many times over. John Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis not by bombing, killing, or destroying in the way that Bush did, but by talking to our enemies. Negotiation is not what cause Nazi to become stronger. It was isolationism. This is why the current Republican Party needs to become extinct. The Democrats will incorporate some conservative ideas with our ideas, and will become a stronger party. We will move toward the middle to keep you out of power for good reason. The Republican ideas are noble, but the unethical behavior is on acceptable. The lying, spinning, doing every thing to succeed is what I hate most about the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party stay pretty much on issue unless the Republican Party attacks with Republican weak facts, unsubstantiated facts, and facts with holes in them.
From the Right?

Obama has said he would talk to Iran sure, but what does this mean? Chamberlain talked to Hitler but then declared war on Germany when Hitler 'smashed' the TOV. Let's say Lebanon breaks down into Civil War. Last time this happened Iran couldn't really help out because the Iraqi's were invading their country, but now it is very different.

Iran has the initiative and let's say that Saudi Arabia goes down the Iranian route as well? The two regional powers in the Middle East both being revolutionary governments!!! Imagine that! Saudi Arabia is an unstable country and could easily go down the Iranian route due to the rampant political, social and economic oppression the citizens enjoy.

Iran before it had the revolution was a country that was very similar to modern Saudi Arabia, that is, it was a tyrannical government backed by the West purely for Oil. The people of Iran realised this and overthrew the despots (arguably to just have them replaces) but the point remains that Saudi Arabia is in exactly the same position. Come on, why do you think we have heavily involved ourselves in the region? You think it because of terrorism? LOL!!!!

Hillary has said she would use the military against Iran if it attack Israel and Obama has said he would deploy the military in Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden. Get with the program.

The greatest threat to our sovereignty is if oil skyrockets, and we are not alone in this. Last time a group of countries challenged the sovereignty of the traditional powers, WW1 and 2 happened.
__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.

You and I must fight to survive
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 08:43 AM
TheChief's Avatar
TheChief TheChief is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia, Perth
Posts: 3,326
usa
TheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant futureTheChief has a brilliant future
Credits: 927
Default

Thats what democrats do they throw the nation into a state of interventionism and the second the republicans say 'o well were to far in it now' and 9/11 happens they jump ship! and start pulling the country in another direction! Just another way democrats are trying to destroy america..

Also notice republicans have more black people in office than the democrats?
__________________
Collective? I'm sure thats easy when your not surrounded by a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 09:27 AM
eleanoraquitaine eleanoraquitaine is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Heaven
Posts: 1,073
usa uk yorkshire
eleanoraquitaine is a glorious beacon of lighteleanoraquitaine is a glorious beacon of lighteleanoraquitaine is a glorious beacon of lighteleanoraquitaine is a glorious beacon of lighteleanoraquitaine is a glorious beacon of lighteleanoraquitaine is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 7,010
Default

We are already at war with iran. We are fighting the iranian maniacs in iraq, afghanistan, lebennon, and all over the world as they try to use terrorism through their evil proxies hexxbolah and hamas. No matter who is in office, the war will escalate over the next year or two to a full fledged destruction of the iranian regime. It is inevitable. They will continue to provoke and attack us until we decide to end their evil.

Obamo kissing their ass for a while will change nothing. Of course, he has NO chance of getting elected anyway, which means McCain will destroy them much quicker, making the world a much, much better and far safer place for us and our children.
__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 09:29 AM
rakkasan's Avatar
rakkasan rakkasan is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7
rakkasan is on a distinguished road
Credits: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KOD View Post
Judging by this post above and others you placed on other threads, it seems as if you have been in a bubble somewhere for the last few decades (assuming, of course, that you are old enough.............doubtful). Democrats would never go to war with Iran. We were coerced into supporting Republican determination to retaliate after 9/11..............against our better judgement, but for the sake of staying politically viable at the time. When we expand our majority in Congress and resume the Presidency this November, we can safely denounce American military activity and return them to the temporary police force duty we usually occupy their time with.

For over a generation, Democrats have supported peace at all cost, deeming war unnecessary under any conditions. What history books have you been reading, and what Democratic presidential candidate have you heard vowing to use military action anywhere?
how were you coerced? did not the previous administration sing the same thing about iraq....and wasnt that democrat ran
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some Evangelicals Vote "Democrat" JP5 Elections & Campaigns 6 02-12-2008 05:16 PM
Let's take the Nation back: Vote Democrat! jedimiller Elections & Campaigns 12 11-13-2006 02:55 AM
India Rejects US Attempts To Force Anti-Iran Vote, India Dai ben-franklin Current Events 9 01-29-2006 10:29 AM
FRIENDS don't let FRIENDS vote DEMOCRAT kjs Elections & Campaigns 49 08-19-2004 10:16 AM
Ok I guess I should not vote for Bush but why should I vote fortressrock Elections & Campaigns 3 07-29-2004 04:04 PM

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden