<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><u>"Negotiating isn't appeasement Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy."</u> By J. Peter Scoblic May 17, 2008 In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes. "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 said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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." But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight. The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. <u>Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."</u> Instead, conservatives agitated for the rollback of communism, and they opposed all negotiations with the Soviets. When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right's leader, complained that the act of "diplomatic sentimentality" signaled the "death rattle of the West." Conservatives even applied this critique to one of the most dangerous moments in human history: the Cuban missile crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's deployment of missiles 90 miles off the American coast. When President Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the crisis, conservative icon Barry Goldwater protested that he had appeased the Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if they backed down. The Soviets withdrew their missiles in what was widely seen as a humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the communists one of their greatest victories in their race for world power that they have enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far preferable to risk nuclear war with the Soviets than to give up our right to roll back Fidel Castro. Indeed, conservatives considered virtually any attempt to bring the arms race under control as a surrender to communism. When the SALT I agreement capping nuclear arsenals came to Capitol Hill, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (whose presidential candidacy Buckley supported in 1972) said that "the total history of man indicates we can place very little reliance on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when the agreements are with nations or powers which have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain's Munich served only to deaden the free world to reality. The communists have plans. SALT will merely cause us to lower our guard, possibly fatally." A few years later, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the elected face of the burgeoning neoconservative movement, charged President Carter with "appeasement in its purest form" for negotiating SALT II, which set equal limits on the number of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers. Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was seen as the culmination of the conservative movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as well, but the trope would come back to bite him. Although Reagan pleased the right enormously during his first three years in office with his military expansion, his call for rollback and his advocacy of missile defenses, conservatives reacted with horror once he began serious negotiations with the Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide."<u> The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.</u> Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement. The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.) Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938? J. Peter Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, is the author of "U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security."</div> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...0,6293795.story Funny how some regurgitate the same fear crap.
This conservative, Christian Right pisses me off. Is it really so hard to see what the problem is? The United States keeps acting like it runs the world...stop trying to overthrow other country's government, and respect each nation's sovereignty, and we will not be having wars. Like look at all major religions, there is Jesus' golden rule, and then what got dubbed as silver rules (from other religions). Christianity: Do unto others what you want them to do to you. Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain. Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Buddhism: Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. I think the United States, and in particular, the Christian Right needs to begin following Jesus' golden rule. How would we feel if Iraq invaded us because we have nuclear weapons? How would we feel if Cuba tried to overthrow our government? We wouldn't like that, now would we. So we need to stop doing this stuff ourselves. I hope that Obama can be the type of leader that Gorbachev was, in terms of foreign relations. Gorbachev took the world off the brink of nuclear war. I hope Obama, like Gorbachev, can be open minded to working with "the enemy", and seeing that the enemy is just making reasonable demands. Stop intervening in every country in the world, respect their sovereignty. I am tired of this atmosphere of perpetual war, with the thought that there is nothing we can do to change the world from this constant warring. That is not the case. As a nation, the United States needs to stop finding imaginary enemies. We keep getting involved in these joke wars because we do not want to respect the free elections in other nations, because the leaders are more worried about helping their own country than the United States. These aren't real enemies, like Hitler and the Japanese. I am tired of fighting imaginary enemies...the communists, and now the terrorists.
Which party is it that ties trade, economic aid, and other international negotiations with human rights and other issues we'd like to coerce countries into doing thing our way? Which party is suggesting we don't show up for the Olympic ceremonies in China? A little bit of history is in order. GHW Bush left office with an entire trade deficit of $80B; during his term he sought MFN (most favored nation) status for China, but Democrats filibustered it in congress. Bush was only the first ambassador to China and was UN ambassador, too. He might know a thing or two about diplomacy... Anyhow, Clinton pushed for MFN for China and Democrats wholeheartedly supported it (or did they vote against it before they voted for it?). By the end of Clinton's two terms, the trade deficit was $800B and it was $80B to China alone. Nixon may have been a dick in most senses of the word (pun intended), but few may realize that he basically saved the world, literally. The Cuban Missile Crisis was just 5 years before Nixon took office, and the world nearly ended over it. Nixon and Kissinger's Detente policy moved us away from the brink of disaster, but had little other positive effect. It didn't stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan, for example. But wait, you say, I am detailing presidents dealing with the enemy! Thing is, though, the USSR and China were superpowers, unlike Iran. And the dealing was an effective way to deter either the USSR or China from starting a really big war (the kind where millions die in days instead of 4000 dying in 7 years). The USSR and China had the longest hostile border in the world (look at a map) - the two countries did not like one another at all. US policy was to team with the Chinese in a 2-on-1 scenario if the USSR started a war. Likewise, a 2-on-1 scenario against the Chinese if they started a war.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 18 2008, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Which party is it that ties trade, economic aid, and other international negotiations with human rights and other issues we'd like to coerce countries into doing thing our way? Which party is suggesting we don't show up for the Olympic ceremonies in China? A little bit of history is in order. GHW Bush left office with an entire trade deficit of $80B; during his term he sought MFN (most favored nation) status for China, but Democrats filibustered it in congress. Bush was only the first ambassador to China and was UN ambassador, too. He might know a thing or two about diplomacy... Anyhow, Clinton pushed for MFN for China and Democrats wholeheartedly supported it (or did they vote against it before they voted for it?). By the end of Clinton's two terms, the trade deficit was $800B and it was $80B to China alone. Nixon may have been a dick in most senses of the word (pun intended), but few may realize that he basically saved the world, literally. The Cuban Missile Crisis was just 5 years before Nixon took office, and the world nearly ended over it. Nixon and Kissinger's Detente policy moved us away from the brink of disaster, but had little other positive effect. It didn't stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan, for example. But wait, you say, I am detailing presidents dealing with the enemy! Thing is, though, the USSR and China were superpowers, unlike Iran. And the dealing was an effective way to deter either the USSR or China from starting a really big war (the kind where millions die in days instead of 4000 dying in 7 years). The USSR and China had the longest hostile border in the world (look at a map) - the two countries did not like one another at all. US policy was to team with the Chinese in a 2-on-1 scenario if the USSR started a war. Likewise, a 2-on-1 scenario against the Chinese if they started a war.</div> The point of the article was the inappropriate use of the word "appeasement". Bush said all negotiating was appeasement, he clearly wasn't specific enough or just made a bad generalization.
Bush said that no "ingenious argument" is likely to persuade the Iranians. Any "deal" cut would in effect be appeasement, period.
^ And that's exactly how Iran would see it. Khomenei made that dynamic clear a few decades ago, and his legacy does continue...
^^^ Well, there's the whole concept of tucking tail and surrendering in Iraq, which would in effect be quite similar appeasement to Chamberlain handing over Poland. In fact, here's the definition of appeasement: literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war</div> Definitely rings a bell as far as Iran is concerned...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 20 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ Well, there's the whole concept of tucking tail and surrendering in Iraq, which would in effect be quite similar appeasement to Chamberlain handing over Poland. In fact, here's the definition of appeasement: literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.</div> And Bush did not clarify the term to that extent. He was reckless, no surprise there though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 20 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know how he could be more specific than saying "some ingenious argument might persuade them"</div> He made it amorphous by including all those who negotiate with terrorists. "Ingenious arguments", sarcastic or not, is not appeasement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush 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. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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."</div> EXACTLY. The only thing wrong with it, apparently, is Obama's handlers didn't write it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.</div>
^^^ It's exactly true. Obama's effectively said he's going to cede Iraq to Iran, which is just about the same thing as Chamberlain ceding Poland to Hitler. The similarities don't end there. Iran's president is a holocaust denier of all things, and has promised another holocaust for Israel. What exactly is there to offer them in trade for what?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 20 2008, 08:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ It's exactly true. Obama's effectively said he's going to cede Iraq to Iran, which is just about the same thing as Chamberlain ceding Poland to Hitler. The similarities don't end there. Iran's president is a holocaust denier of all things, and has promised another holocaust for Israel. What exactly is there to offer them in trade for what?</div> Bush gave Iraq to Iran.
Bush didn't give Iraq to Iran. There's a democratically elected government (you know, where all the peoples' votes counted) in Iraq. There won't be after Iran invades when we're gone.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 20 2008, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bush didn't give Iraq to Iran. There's a democratically elected government (you know, where all the peoples' votes counted) in Iraq. There won't be after Iran invades when we're gone.</div> Not only has he given Iraq to Iran on a silver platter with his disastrous foreign policies (democracy is not established in Iraq is it?), he's also ignored Afghanistan and allowed Hamas to get stronger. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Bush administration plan sought to undo the results of elections in the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006 which, to the chagrin of White House and State Department officials, saw Hamas win a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature.</div> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/0...thepalestinians His naive view that democracy can flourish anywhere is harshly mistaken. Whereas Obama believes practically the same thing Robert Gates and McCain do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 20 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His naive view that democracy can flourish anywhere is harshly mistaken. Whereas Obama believes practically the same thing Robert Gates and McCain do.</div> If that's the case why is McCain attacking Obama?
