<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 15 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We have no business trying to overthrow the Cuban government. That attack is valid reason for Cuba to attack us. 9/11 was blowback from our intervention in the Middle East. We could have stopped 9/11 if our defense wasn't crap under Bush, and even with the first plane slipping through, there was no excuse for the next 3. Why the hell were these planes not shot down?</div> LOL that's such bullshit. if you read the 9/11 Commission, the blame does not solely go to Bush. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This thing is in General Election mode now, and the Democratic race is forgotten about. With it just being in the first week of the General Election campaign, the Republicans are already making asses out of themselves, as in this video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/h...e_n_102020.html Yeah...Obama is going to win quite easily. As has been said, once people start putting into focus Obama vs. McCain, Obama will win easily.</div> I won't deny that he could win easily, considering the unpopularity of the war and the soaring popularity of Barack. You can't say that for sure though.
The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer? </div> He negotiated with Egypt and Jordan, among other things. Watch the clip, it's fun and loaded with History. It's more interesting than me just telling you at least.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer? </div> He negotiated with Egypt and Jordan, among other things. Watch the clip, it's fun and loaded with History. It's more interesting than me just telling you at least. </div> This computer doesn't permit sound... However, as I generally sit there and correct inaccuracies in most videos, just telling me the name would be enough to go on.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> What part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazed terrorist dictator and there is nothing to be gained by reasoning with him do you not understand?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer? </div> He negotiated with Egypt and Jordan, among other things. Watch the clip, it's fun and loaded with History. It's more interesting than me just telling you at least. </div> This computer doesn't permit sound... However, as I generally sit there and correct inaccuracies in most videos, just telling me the name would be enough to go on. </div> I can point out a few different people but Sharon (pronounced Shaw-RAH-n, not "Sharon" I believe) and Ehud Barak come to mind. It isn't specifically mentioned although the PM is quoted directly in the vid.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 15 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> What part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazed terrorist dictator and there is nothing to be gained by reasoning with him do you not understand? </div> What part of Robert Gates = Secretary of Defense do you not understand? Why is Condi not heeding your advice about crazy leaders? Lol what's your case again? Just drop it already.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 15 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> What part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazed terrorist dictator and there is nothing to be gained by reasoning with him do you not understand? </div> What part of Robert Gates = Secretary of Defense do you not understand? Why is Condi not heeding your advice about crazy leaders? Lol what's your case again? Just drop it already. </div> My case is quite clear. I don't see the benefits of negotiating with a terrorist fuck like Ahmadinejad now or in the future. There will be no lucky peace treaty forged with this man.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 15 2008, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 15 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> What part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazed terrorist dictator and there is nothing to be gained by reasoning with him do you not understand? </div> What part of Robert Gates = Secretary of Defense do you not understand? Why is Condi not heeding your advice about crazy leaders? Lol what's your case again? Just drop it already. </div> My case is quite clear. I don't see the benefits of negotiating with a terrorist **** like Ahmadinejad now or in the future. There will be no lucky peace treaty forged with this man. </div> Bush can't run his mouth about this issue. Negotiating is not appeasement; appeasement is giving another country to the bad guys. It doesn't matter if Obama fails 10000 times, all that matters is if we get lucky once in a while. There's more than enough conservatives that share this view, as well as respected people. Plus you're complaining for no reason. If nothing happens then it doesn't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What part of Robert Gates = Secretary of Defense do you not understand? Why is Condi not heeding your advice about crazy leaders? Lol what's your case again? Just drop it already.</div> LOL at not knowing the difference between getting leverage before talking to the Iranians and just talking to the Iranians without that leverage. The former is what Gates and Rice suggest, the latter is what Obama suggests. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bush can't run his mouth about this issue. Negotiating is not appeasement; appeasement is giving another country to the bad guys.</div> Sounds like surrendering in Iraq and talking to the Iranians is exactly giving another country (Iraq) to the bad guys (Ahmanidinijad) Those ARE Obama's proposed policies.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer? </div> He negotiated with Egypt and Jordan, among other things. Watch the clip, it's fun and loaded with History. It's more interesting than me just telling you at least. </div> This computer doesn't permit sound... However, as I generally sit there and correct inaccuracies in most videos, just telling me the name would be enough to go on. </div> I can point out a few different people but Sharon (pronounced Shaw-RAH-n, not "Sharon" I believe) and Ehud Barak come to mind. It isn't specifically mentioned although the PM is quoted directly in the vid. </div> Those are the two names that occurred to me - but wasn't sure which was who you were speaking of. Here's the problem. Negotiating with Egypt and Jordan is completely unlike negotiating with either the likes of Syria/Iran on one hand or the PLO/Hamas on the other. For one thing, Jordan actually was responsible for the biggest smackdown on Palestinians to date when the PLO tried to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty in the 70s. In fact, at one point, the official Jordanian army newspaper ran an article accusing Yasser Arafat of being (seriously) either a Jew or at LEAST a Zionist agent. As for Egypt, while it was actually the first to use Palestinians as direct proxies (the fedayeen on the 1950s) and was the prime mover in creating the PLO (1964), after the negotiations at Kilometer 101 between Israeli and Egyptian army officers in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, there was enough common ground between the governments to negotiate in good faith. Good faith is the crucial term here, and it is something that Syria and Iran both lack, as do Hamas and the PLO. That's why talking about 'negotiations' with them is idiotic, or at least the mark of a severely naive individual. Except that isn't accurate here either. Obama's policy advisers are notable not merely for their adherence to a decidedly Arabist geopolitical viewpoint, but are in several cases virulently anti-Israel. And it's been pointed out that it's more than a little hypocritical of Bush to talk about not appeasing terrorists when it was his summoning of Sharon to Texas that led to further Israeli concessions, including the monumentally blundering withdrawal from Gaza.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 16 2008, 07:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What part of Robert Gates = Secretary of Defense do you not understand? Why is Condi not heeding your advice about crazy leaders? Lol what's your case again? Just drop it already.</div> LOL at not knowing the difference between getting leverage before talking to the Iranians and just talking to the Iranians without that leverage. The former is what Gates and Rice suggest, the latter is what Obama suggests. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bush can't run his mouth about this issue. Negotiating is not appeasement; appeasement is giving another country to the bad guys.</div> Sounds like surrendering in Iraq and talking to the Iranians is exactly giving another country (Iraq) to the bad guys (Ahmanidinijad) Those ARE Obama's proposed policies. </div> I agree, preconditions and leverage is everything. If we don't have both, then we're negotiating on an equal footing with these guys, and that undermines us and portrays them as equal. Even with preconditions and leverage, I still don't see anything to be gained with talking to this man, but if my President, whoever he/she may be, wants to do that I hope he/she takes the proper precautions. Look at it this way, if you want to push the argument that Bush made everyone hate America and made the world divided, then you have to admit that going in and negotiating with these people under the circumstances now doesn't make us look any better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>LOL at not knowing the difference between getting leverage before talking to the Iranians and just talking to the Iranians without that leverage. The former is what Gates and Rice suggest, the latter is what Obama suggests.</div> You doubt America's power? What Leverage do we need? It's not a Surrender Party, you're clearly a fear mongerer. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Sounds like surrendering in Iraq and talking to the Iranians is exactly giving another country (Iraq) to the bad guys (Ahmanidinijad) Those ARE Obama's proposed policies.</div> Hey Doctor of Spin, that's not the same as what Neville Chamberlain did. Reality check, Iraq is already a lost cause. If he never believed in negotiating with them, we would still be out of there. It has nothing to do with his talks there, Bush needs a dictionary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree, preconditions and leverage is everything. If we don't have both, then we're negotiating on an equal footing with these guys, and that undermines us and portrays them as equal. Even with preconditions and leverage, I still don't see anything to be gained with talking to this man, but if my President, whoever he/she may be, wants to do that I hope he/she takes the proper precautions.</div> Lol proper precautions against what? You think Obama will just stroll up to Iran alone? What kind of superfluous preconditions do you propose? Even if you listen to Obama's latest words on the matter, he does believe in some preconditions. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Look at it this way, if you want to push the argument that Bush made everyone hate America and made the world divided, then you have to admit that going in and negotiating with these people under the circumstances now doesn't make us look any better.</div> And tell me where he made an offensive deal that would cause us to draw the ire of the world? Please. Again, you are in panic about deals that have never been proposed between Obama and Country X. You're causing hysteria for no reason.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer? </div> He negotiated with Egypt and Jordan, among other things. Watch the clip, it's fun and loaded with History. It's more interesting than me just telling you at least. </div> This computer doesn't permit sound... However, as I generally sit there and correct inaccuracies in most videos, just telling me the name would be enough to go on. </div> I can point out a few different people but Sharon (pronounced Shaw-RAH-n, not "Sharon" I believe) and Ehud Barak come to mind. It isn't specifically mentioned although the PM is quoted directly in the vid. </div> Those are the two names that occurred to me - but wasn't sure which was who you were speaking of. Here's the problem. Negotiating with Egypt and Jordan is completely unlike negotiating with either the likes of Syria/Iran on one hand or the PLO/Hamas on the other. For one thing, Jordan actually was responsible for the biggest smackdown on Palestinians to date when the PLO tried to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty in the 70s. In fact, at one point, the official Jordanian army newspaper ran an article accusing Yasser Arafat of being (seriously) either a Jew or at LEAST a Zionist agent. As for Egypt, while it was actually the first to use Palestinians as direct proxies (the fedayeen on the 1950s) and was the prime mover in creating the PLO (1964), after the negotiations at Kilometer 101 between Israeli and Egyptian army officers in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, there was enough common ground between the governments to negotiate in good faith. Good faith is the crucial term here, and it is something that Syria and Iran both lack, as do Hamas and the PLO. That's why talking about 'negotiations' with them is idiotic, or at least the mark of a severely naive individual. Except that isn't accurate here either. Obama's policy advisers are notable not merely for their adherence to a decidedly Arabist geopolitical viewpoint, but are in several cases virulently anti-Israel. And it's been pointed out that it's more than a little hypocritical of Bush to talk about not appeasing terrorists when it was his summoning of Sharon to Texas that led to further Israeli concessions, including the monumentally blundering withdrawal from Gaza. </div> You bring up some fair points, but Obama himself is not virulently anti-Israel. Conducting naive talks is not appeasement, that's the difference.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 15 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 15 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Former General and Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Obama, and he knows a lot more about terrorism than Bush. There's a difference between appeasement and talking, watch the clip BG7 posted.</div> To whom do you refer? </div> He negotiated with Egypt and Jordan, among other things. Watch the clip, it's fun and loaded with History. It's more interesting than me just telling you at least. </div> This computer doesn't permit sound... However, as I generally sit there and correct inaccuracies in most videos, just telling me the name would be enough to go on. </div> I can point out a few different people but Sharon (pronounced Shaw-RAH-n, not "Sharon" I believe) and Ehud Barak come to mind. It isn't specifically mentioned although the PM is quoted directly in the vid. </div> Those are the two names that occurred to me - but wasn't sure which was who you were speaking of. Here's the problem. Negotiating with Egypt and Jordan is completely unlike negotiating with either the likes of Syria/Iran on one hand or the PLO/Hamas on the other. For one thing, Jordan actually was responsible for the biggest smackdown on Palestinians to date when the PLO tried to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty in the 70s. In fact, at one point, the official Jordanian army newspaper ran an article accusing Yasser Arafat of being (seriously) either a Jew or at LEAST a Zionist agent. As for Egypt, while it was actually the first to use Palestinians as direct proxies (the fedayeen on the 1950s) and was the prime mover in creating the PLO (1964), after the negotiations at Kilometer 101 between Israeli and Egyptian army officers in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, there was enough common ground between the governments to negotiate in good faith. Good faith is the crucial term here, and it is something that Syria and Iran both lack, as do Hamas and the PLO. That's why talking about 'negotiations' with them is idiotic, or at least the mark of a severely naive individual. Except that isn't accurate here either. Obama's policy advisers are notable not merely for their adherence to a decidedly Arabist geopolitical viewpoint, but are in several cases virulently anti-Israel. And it's been pointed out that it's more than a little hypocritical of Bush to talk about not appeasing terrorists when it was his summoning of Sharon to Texas that led to further Israeli concessions, including the monumentally blundering withdrawal from Gaza. </div> You bring up some fair points, but Obama himself is not virulently anti-Israel. Conducting naive talks is not appeasement, that's the difference. </div> The problem is that Obama himself is a politician, and as such, keeps his cards close to his vest. He is also rather new to issues of international politics, and so will likely to lean on his advisers considerably - that's the nature of the game. When one combines those factors with the nature of his Mid-East advisory team, it is extremely worrying. Conducting talks, meanwhile, is not appeasement in and of itself - but in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the first has led to the second on something like 17 occasions. There is a substantial connection that probably rises to the level of being causal. Just for the sake of accuracy Ariel Sharon's last name is pronounce Sha-RONE.
Obama has commented on his love for Israel and how he would not help their enemies if they continued to engage in terrorism. This thread is too hypothetical for my liking, you shouldn't worry about anything. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has gone to great lengths to set the record straight about his position on Israel, meeting numerous times with Jewish leaders during the campaign. That may seem like a lot of effort for a group that has comprised about 4 percent of Democratic primary voters as of March 2008. But studies show that the Jewish voter turnout rate is significantly higher than other ethnic groups. (Exit polls show Clinton has held a 52-46 percent edge over Obama among Jewish voters this primary season.) The doubts about Obama’s stance on Israel stand in stark contrast to the thumbs-up he has gotten from several major Jewish organizations. “All of the leading presidential candidates ... have demonstrated a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,” said Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America’s pro-Israel lobby. “All three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the pro-Israel community.” The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) isn’t taking sides in the primary but has concluded that both Clinton and Obama “are strong supporters of Israel.” In its analysis of Obama, the NJDC states: “Senator Obama has an outstanding voting record on Israel issues. Senator Obama co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. He has joined several letters urging actions on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel, including a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups, a letter urging President Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections and a letter expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. He has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran.” <u> In an address at the 2007 NJDC Washington Conference, Obama promised that as president he would “stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel” in search of peace.</u> <u> To an AIPAC audience in Chicago on March 2, 2007, Obama pledged “a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. ... That will always be my starting point.”</u> Rep. Wexler, who has been at the forefront of Obama’s efforts to woo Jewish voters nationwide, said he wouldn’t be so adamant if he weren’t convinced of Obama’s commitment to Israel. “If you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus,” Wexler said.</div> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/
<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-sOlaso_7Z8&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-sOlaso_7Z8&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>
