Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyside
Also there is an obvious point in all this that might be missed.
Appeasement means "The policy of granting concessions or gifts to potential enemies to maintain peace."
So when Obama says that he'll offer goodies to Iran if they halt their support of terror attacks or insurgents, he is in fact being an appeaser. That part shouldn't be up for discussion.
(Bush is offering N korea goodies, but that's because we're asking them to halt all nuclear refining and energy production which they have a right to do.)
The questions that should be asked in a thread like this are:
1. Did Obama really mean that he would give goodies to Iran if they halted their support of Insurgents/terrorists (sure seems like it and that's what I think most Democrats took him to mean, but he wasn't quite specific enough to say for sure).
2. Is appeasement really such a bad thing(most people think so)
3. Are Bush or McCain also appeasers (Bush isn't with NK as explained above).
Special bonus secondary topic: Is opening official diplomatic channels with an aggressor without requiring them to give an inch, meet a precondition, or make some token gesture a form of gift or concession, at which point it would be a mild form of appeasement?
|
And, in a somewhat less clear way
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyside
I'm not a Bush fan. But the difference is that Bush wasn't going in for unconditional talks (In this case his conditions were that the talks be with multiple countries). And the purpose of his talks was to get the North to disarm. From the article it looks like they're at least managing to shut down future production. We'll see if they actually blow the tower.
Really though Obamas problem with this was a failure in how he communicated what he wanted to do. Chiefly in moving to talk about "carrots" that would be offered first such as WTO membership and basically evaded any mention of sticks. Hence the accusations of appeasment.
Also Obama has a lot of fire. He could have turned it on, whipped out some hand gesures and his loud voice and and spoke about how he will go to Iran and tell them to quit supporting terrists and to halt their persuit of nuclear weapons.
Something. But no, he brought none of that.
He's even sort of went soft on the issue itself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...sforeignpolicy (little old).
If he can't convince people in his own country he isn't going over there as an appeaser I question his ability to stand up for America in talks and not be one. |
What, precisely, do you want to see explained still? If it's "what was the pre-condition for NK talks" I'm not the only one that's been trying to tell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5
This is just ONE STEP in the multi-nation negotiations. It doesn't stop here. And North Korea will be held to following through on PROVING they are doing what they say they are doing. There WERE preconditions about this deal----it began with the insistence from the Bush administration that the talks to six-nation talks; not unilateral as occured during the Clinton administration and as Obama advocates.
It's amazing how many libs can't comprehend the huge differences.
|
You could say preconditions are stupid or something. But you can't deny that there
was a precondition and
it was met.
But again I don't think that one necessarily has to have a precondition to talk. There is a place for some good old fashioned face to face threatening at the very least. However that does not change the fact that Obama does seem to be proposing appeasement.
06-27-2008, 02:20 AM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
